News Obama for President: Experienced Leader

  • Thread starter Thread starter Pythagorean
  • Start date Start date
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the qualifications and effectiveness of the current president in the context of the upcoming election, with a focus on his experience and policies. Supporters argue that the president has successfully navigated a challenging political landscape and deserves a second term to continue his initiatives, particularly for middle America. Critics, however, express skepticism about his ability to lead effectively, citing partisanship and a tendency to blame previous administrations for ongoing issues. There is a notable divide in opinions regarding the impact of the president's policies on the middle class, with some claiming that his actions have led to higher taxes and medical costs, while others argue he has provided significant benefits, particularly in education and healthcare. The conversation also touches on the broader implications of partisanship in government and the perceived disconnect between political actions and the needs of the average citizen. Overall, the debate reflects deep divisions in political perspectives and the complexities of evaluating a president's performance amidst ongoing economic challenges.
  • #101
mheslep said:
Even there with his rejection of the Keystone XL pipeline he is dragging down the system.
There are good reasons not to be dragged into a hasty rubber-stamping of such a potentially damaging project. There are plenty of people "dragging down the system", such as obstructionists in Congress who want to hold up funding for infrastructure. We have badly-crumbling roads and bridges all over this country, so funding for such projects could have a very wide-spread effect, instead of preferentially delivering a windfall to one region or one industry.

It is penny-wise and pound-foolish to resist such stimulatory spending (rebuilding infrastructure) in a recession. Every construction worker, steel-worker, Caterpillar employee, etc that can be employed would be paying taxes and would be producing other jobs in their localities as their demand for goods and service keep pace with their wages. Sometime, you have to prime the pump.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #102
turbo said:
There are good reasons not to be dragged into a hasty
Hasty? Where do you get the idea the Keystone XL review has been hasty vs interminably drawn out in review by agency after agency?

March 17, 2008
TransCanada Corp. (TransCanada), on behalf of TransCanada Keystone Pipeline, LP (Keystone), on Friday announced that the U.S. Department of State has issued a Presidential Permit to Keystone authorizing the construction, maintenance and operation ...

...
Keystone XL extension was proposed in 2008. The application was filed in the beginning of 2009 and the National Energy Board of Canada started hearings in September 2009. It was approved by the National Energy Board on March 11, 2010. The South Dakota Public Utilities Commission granted a permit on February 19, 2010.

On July 21, 2010, the Environmental Protection Agency said the draft environmental impact study for Keystone XL was inadequate and should be revised, indicating that the State Department's original report was "unduly narrow" because it didn't fully look at oil spill response plans, safety issues and greenhouse gas concerns. ... The final environmental impact report was released on August 26, 2011. It stated that the pipeline would pose "no significant impacts" to most resources if environmental protection measures are followed, but it would present "significant adverse effects to certain cultural resources."...

turbo said:
There are plenty of people "dragging down the system", such as obstructionists in Congress who want to hold up funding for infrastructure. We have badly-crumbling roads and bridges all over this country, so funding for such projects could have a very wide-spread effect, instead of preferentially delivering a windfall to one region or one industry.

It is penny-wise and pound-foolish to resist such stimulatory spending (rebuilding infrastructure) in a recession. Every construction worker, steel-worker, Caterpillar employee, etc that can be employed would be paying taxes and would be producing other jobs in their localities as their demand for goods and service keep pace with their wages. Sometime, you have to prime the pump.
The stimulus jobs I assume you are referring to have and will cost the taxpayer plenty, and I see no evidence that they have stimulated anything despite the ample rhetoric saying they have. The Keystone XL jobs on the other hand would cost the taxpayer nothing, as they are all private sector, and would help to hold down the cost of fuel, thus transportation, thus everything else.
 
  • #103
The Keystone XL jobs on the other hand would cost the taxpayer nothing, as they are all private sector, and would help to hold down the cost of fuel, thus transportation, thus everything else.

In order to sell fossil fuels which are among the most contaminated and "dirty" in the world? Obama did the right thing. Even if we're not going to be a decent green nation, we can at least pretend we are by shunning the worst of the worst.
 
  • #104
Angry Citizen said:
In order to sell fossil fuels which are among the most contaminated and "dirty" in the world?
Contaminated? Why not add radioactive and contains human body parts while you are at it?

Obama did the right thing.
Sure, if one believes the US should be turned into a giant national park the BANANAs. Canadian leadership, at least, has rejected the notion:

PM Harper said:
[Foreign money attempting to delay pipeline hearings:] But just because certain people in the United States would like to see Canada be one giant national park for the northern half of North America, I don't think that's part of what our review process is all about. Our process is there to determine what the needs and desires of Canadians are
 
  • #105
Angry Citizen said:
Germany is also significantly more protectionist and left-wing than we are, and they still have a large manufacturing base. Further proof that the world needs more left-wing economics.
If Germany is proof we need more left wing economics, most of the rest of Europe must be proof we don't. :rolleyes:
 
  • #106
russ_watters said:
If Germany is proof we need more left wing economics, most of the rest of Europe must be proof we don't. :rolleyes:

Because the United States, which is the embodiment of right-wing economics with a few modest exceptions, has done so well...
 
  • #108
Pythagorean said:
He has the most experience as president with the current political atmosphere.

I thought about this statement during my 7 hours of driving today. I think a good case could be made for both Hillary and Jeb. Hillary spent eight years in the White House and lived through some difficult challenges and decisions. Jeb has twelve years of close proximity and a unique triangular view (for lack of a better description).
 
  • #109
Angry Citizen said:
Because the United States, which is the embodiment of right-wing economics with a few modest exceptions, has done so well...

Why don't you elaborate on your description - or support?
 
  • #110
mheslep said:
I posted employed fraction of population intentionally to show the difference. To be 'Unemployed' in the BLS definition means you have jump through some of their hoops to be considered actively looking. Many people have given up looking, falling off the BLS definition, but the employed to population statistic still shows what's going on. E/P has its flaws too, as people simply retiring will lower E/P.

So, in other words, it's your opinion that 20 million people are unemployed but want work?

Yes it has improved from the bottom. My point is that in all other US recessions the economy has bounced back more quickly. The global economy was impacted by the financial crisis, but other countries, like Germany which shunned a large stimulus despite Geitner's clamoring, have recovered robustly. If it were not for the luck of the recent boom in tight oil and gas I doubt the US economy would have got off the floor at all. Even there, with his rejection of the Keystone XL pipeline, he is dragging down the system.

No other recession has been as big as the '07 recession and, the recession is over. Just because we still have the effects that the recession caused still occurring doesn't mean we are still in a recession.

As for the XL pipeline, well:

http://www.engineering.unl.edu/publications/ENonline/Summer11/pipeline.html

http://journalstar.com/news/opinion...6-42fc-5065-a370-f7b371cb1ece.html?mode=story

It is better to stop the pipeline and work out the possible errors in its construction rather than building something that (EDIT) has the potential* to cause more devastation to the ecosystem and cause people to be without water and a place to live because of relocation. It is too risky.

I don't see the system being "dragged" down when it is improving.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #111
WhoWee said:
Why don't you elaborate on your description - or support?

What manner of support would you like?

The United States has a very poor social safety net that is much less inclusive than other countries, particularly in Europe. We don't have socialized medicine. Our tax rates are much lower, which limits our ability to redistribute wealth. Consequently, our income inequality is the highest in the developed world. Our regulations are much more lax than in Europe. We have signed numerous free trade agreements with countries whose labor forces work at significantly lower wage levels, and then we wonder why our companies ship themselves overseas. These are all the effects of right-wing thought, and is evidence that America is a nation governed by two right-wing parties.
 
  • #112
Angry Citizen said:
What manner of support would you like?

The United States has a very poor social safety net that is much less inclusive than other countries, particularly in Europe. We don't have socialized medicine. Our tax rates are much lower, which limits our ability to redistribute wealth. Consequently, our income inequality is the highest in the developed world. Our regulations are much more lax than in Europe. We have signed numerous free trade agreements with countries whose labor forces work at significantly lower wage levels, and then we wonder why our companies ship themselves overseas. These are all the effects of right-wing thought, and is evidence that America is a nation governed by two right-wing parties.

Can you be more specific in your analysis of the US safety net - for instance - are you taking into account the US "Poverty Level" thresholds in comparison to other countries? Since you haven't supplied any actual data - perhaps you'd like to compare the value of benefits received (food stamps, housing, healthcare, education) on a per capita basis to income levels around the world (just a thought)?
 
  • #113
Fukuyama's latest musings.

I'm not a great fan of him. I think he was once one of Bush advisers. But -honestly- I forgot.

(Looked him up. I think I confuse him often with Huntington.)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #114
WhoWee said:
I thought about this statement during my 7 hours of driving today. I think a good case could be made for both Hillary and Jeb. Hillary spent eight years in the White House and lived through some difficult challenges and decisions. Jeb has twelve years of close proximity and a unique triangular view (for lack of a better description).

They're... not candidates...
 
  • #115
Pythagorean said:
They're... not candidates...

Maybe Hillary should be - she has 8 years in the Clinton White House and as much time logged in the Obama Administration as the President.
 
  • #116
WhoWee said:
Maybe Hillary should be - she has 8 years in the Clinton White House and as much time logged in the Obama Administration as the President.

That would be game over; the reincarnation of Ronald Reagan wouldn't have a chance.

Skippy
 
  • #117
mheslep said:
I posted employed fraction of population intentionally to show the difference. ...
hmmmm...
pf.employed.fraction.of.population.last.10.years.jpg


One less dollar spent on my reading spectacles, and I'd not be able to see the negative slope.
 
  • #118
Angry Citizen said:
What manner of support would you like?

The United States has a very poor social safety net that is much less inclusive than other countries, particularly in Europe. We don't have socialized medicine. Our tax rates are much lower, which limits our ability to redistribute wealth. Consequently, our income inequality is the highest in the developed world. Our regulations are much more lax than in Europe. We have signed numerous free trade agreements with countries whose labor forces work at significantly lower wage levels, and then we wonder why our companies ship themselves overseas. These are all the effects of right-wing thought, and is evidence that America is a nation governed by two right-wing parties.
Er, welll sure if we define "doing well" to equal being more socialistic then by definition, we are doing badly by not being more socialistic. Not that that says anything useful, though. :rolleyes:
 
  • #119
russ_watters said:
Er, welll sure if we define "doing well" to equal being more socialistic then by definition, we are doing badly by not being more socialistic. Not that that says anything useful, though. :rolleyes:

Well, I'm glad you like income inequality. "Socialistic" - *eyeroll* You know, I talk to real socialists all the time, and they think the right's obsession with it is hilarious. Even the most left wing of the European "socialist" states only has half its economy owned by the government.
 
  • #120
Angry Citizen said:
Well, I'm glad you like income inequality.
I don't "like" it any more than I "like" gravity. It isn't in and of itself bad or good, it just is. Defining it as "bad" carries with it the implication that a country with more equality is automatically better than one with less even if every single person in the unequal country is richer than anyone in the more equal one. Its beyond silly to focus on inequality in a vacuum.
"Socialistic" - *eyeroll* You know, I talk to real socialists all the time, and they think the right's obsession with it is hilarious. Even the most left wing of the European "socialist" states only has half its economy owned by the government.
Wow, extremist socialists think moderate socialists are actually on the other side of the fence? :bugeye:

Not sure why you even want to pretend like I'm doing some unfair labeling here: you referenced socialism pretty much by name in your post.
 
  • #121
I don't "like" it any more than I "like" gravity. It isn't in and of itself bad or good, it just is. Defining it as "bad" carries with it the implication that a country with more equality is automatically better than one with less even if every single person in the unequal country is richer than anyone in the more equal one. Its beyond silly to focus on inequality in a vacuum.

Righty-oh then. If you believe the disparity in overall wealth between the US and, say, Norway is so great as to nullify Norway's huge advantage in terms of income equality, then that's your right - but it's wrong.

Wow, extremist socialists think moderate socialists are actually on the other side of the fence?

Not sure why you even want to pretend like I'm doing some unfair labeling here: you referenced socialism pretty much by name in your post.

No I didn't. Do I suggest government control of the means of production? No? Guess I'm not a socialist then, or even a 'moderate' socialist... I'm a social democrat. I believe in a roughly even mix of 'capitalism' and 'socialism'. It has been seen throughout western Europe as an ideal system. The more a country moves from that ideal, the more it risks falling into economic devastation. The western European nations you would denounce are actually doing much better than we are; and again, we have a significantly more right-wing economy.
 
  • #122
Angry Citizen said:
Righty-oh then. If you believe the disparity in overall wealth between the US and, say, Norway is so great as to nullify Norway's huge advantage in terms of income equality, then that's your right - but it's wrong.
What I believe is that the differences in quality of life between most first world nations are too small and reasons too different to be easily distinguished. But when comparing countries with larger wealth disparities, income inequality quickly become meaningless. For example, the US and China have identical income inequalities, yet the US has 6x the per capita GDP. Poverty rates in the two countries are so different as to be impossible to compare.
No I didn't. Do I suggest government control of the means of production? No? Guess I'm not a socialist then, or even a 'moderate' socialist... I'm a social democrat. I believe in a roughly even mix of 'capitalism' and 'socialism'.
Stop playing games. The "socialized" in "socialized medicine" medicine is a reference to socialism and acknowledging that you prefer a mix of socialism and capitalism is a reflection of your belief in some socialistic policies. There was absolutely nothing wrong with my characterization. At the same time, your rejection of the idea (unsolicited) that you are a "moderate socialist" while labeling yourself to be almost in the middle is disingenuous. A moderate anything is a person who is just toward that side of a two sided spectrum. If you're just to the left of center, you're a moderate socialist. If you're just to the right (doubt it), you're a moderate capitalist. But the difference between the two when you're almost exactly in the center (assuming you really are) is virtually nonexistent.

Moreover, you do suggest government control over some some industries, so unless you intend to play more word games with what "production" is your support of socialized medicine most certainly is a socialistic position of yours.
It has been seen throughout western Europe as an ideal system.
You mean until it collapses under its own weight? Regardless, opinions are opinions and you're entitled to believe it is an ideal system regardless of evidence or logical basis.
The more a country moves from that ideal, the more it risks falling into economic devastation. The western European nations you would denounce are actually doing much better than we are...
I'm not denouncing anyone and again, "better" is a matter of opinion and definition (in your case, a recursive one). Please stop with the propaganda language.
 
Last edited:
  • #123
What I believe is that the differences in quality of life between most first world nations are too small and reasons too different to be easily distinguished.

Okay. I guess you've never been an uninsured diabetic like me, who, without socialized medicine, would have to pay some five hundred dollars monthly for insulin and needles and test strips. That's a huge quality of life change, and is just one example where America and non-America differ significantly.

You mean until it collapses under its own weight?

Chile is a great example in which laissez-faire economics collapses under its own weight, and Keynesian economics comes to the rescue. Western Europe is not 'collapsing under its own weight'. The Eurozone debt per capita average is twenty percent less than ours, while maintaining significant advantages in quality of life and a much more stable unemployment roster. I will not deny that countries like Greece are in it deep, but much of that has to do with the fact that these countries did not follow Keynesian economics. The debt must actually be paid down in times of plenty. It wasn't. Sucks for those countries - maybe if it weren't for the neo-liberal revolution that has taken place since Reagan?
 
  • #124
Angry Citizen - I'm a bit confused with your postings about the benefits of Socialism in a thread titled "Obama's Candidacy" - how is this on topic? What does the defense of Socialism have to do with President Obama?
 
  • #126
Angry Citizen said:
...Even the most left wing of the European "socialist" states only has half its economy owned by the government.
Owned? Half? That went out 20-30 years ago. I suppose the UK's NHS (several million employees) constitutes a high fraction of the UK economy.
 
Last edited:
  • #127
Angry Citizen said:
...never been an uninsured diabetic like me, who, without socialized medicine, ...
What happened to "We don't have socialized medicine". Seems clear to me that US medicine is at least half socialized - Medicare, Medicaid, and Veteran's being government single payer systems (and unsustainable).
 
  • #128
mheslep said:
What happened to "We don't have socialized medicine". Seems clear to me that US medicine is at least half socialized - Medicare, Medicaid, and Veteran's being government single payer systems (and unsustainable).

Not to wander too far off topic - BUT - Medicare sets the standards for all medical billing and insurance reimbursement. I'm still trying to figure out why we are discussing Socialism in this thread about President Obama's Candidacy?
 
  • #129
WhoWee said:
Angry Citizen - I'm a bit confused with your postings about the benefits of Socialism in a thread titled "Obama's Candidacy" - how is this on topic? What does the defense of Socialism have to do with President Obama?

Nice point. He's not a socialist, after all.

WhoWee said:
(Apparently the President's proposed tax strategy is faith based?)

Well, if it works for the Republicans to claim that their tax strategies have God's will behind them, might as well try the same, right?

/facetiousness
 
  • #130
Clearly a monarch is subject to no earthly authority, deriving his right to rule directly from the will of God. It's now the same with tax laws, of course.
 
  • #131
MarcoD said:
Clearly a monarch is subject to no earthly authority, deriving his right to rule directly from the will of God. It's now the same with tax laws, of course.

I'm not certain what the discussion of a monarch has to do with President Obama's Candidacy either?
 
  • #132
WhoWee said:
This recent CNN piece speaks for itself-IMO.

http://money.cnn.com/2012/02/02/news/economy/obama_tax_rich_jesus/

"Obama: Jesus would back my tax-the-rich policy"


(Apparently the President's proposed tax strategy is faith based?)

I interpreted that as a response to christian conservative leaders who apply "biblical" arguments in favour of the tax cuts and the free-market; a "**** you" of sorts to his opponents.
 
  • #133
Excuses. I have to watch my mouth sometimes. I just found the similarity of the arguments of divine monarchy and 'divine taxation' striking.

And in a funny thought, wouldn't that be something, to have Romney as king. The United Kingdom of the Americas!

Forget it, back on topic to Obama, please.
 
  • #134
Yeah.. it was an obvious backhanded comment. It's very Obama-like. Any argument that it was actually faith-based is either ignorant or deceitful. Ignorance is easy to forgive. I'm pretty ignorant about politics, myself. Social sciences are vastly complex!
 
  • #135
Pythagorean said:
Yeah.. it was an obvious backhanded comment. It's very Obama-like. Any argument that it was actually faith-based is either ignorant or deceitful. Ignorance is easy to forgive. I'm pretty ignorant about politics, myself. Social sciences are vastly complex!

I think the statement was a bit arrogant and dismissive of religious folk - might come back to hurt him?

On the other hand, it's possible he was speaking from the heart (he did spend 20 years in Rev Wright's church in Chicago) and we got a quick look under the tent and now understand the President makes decisions based on his religious beliefs. The alternative is not very nice - is it?
 
  • #136
WhoWee said:
I think the statement was a bit arrogant and dismissive of religious folk - might come back to hurt him?

On the other hand, it's possible he was speaking from the heart (he did spend 20 years in Rev Wright's church in Chicago) and we got a quick look under the tent and now understand the President makes decisions based on his religious beliefs. The alternative is not very nice - is it?

I don't think it matters that much. Religious people already seem to think Obama's a bad candidate - at least, every religious person I've seen on TV and in the news seems to think that.
 
  • #137
WhoWee said:
I think the statement was a bit arrogant and dismissive of religious folk - might come back to hurt him?

On the other hand, it's possible he was speaking from the heart (he did spend 20 years in Rev Wright's church in Chicago) and we got a quick look under the tent and now understand the President makes decisions based on his religious beliefs. The alternative is not very nice - is it?

Who cares whether it's nice or not? It wasn't arrogant and dismissive of religious folk in general, just a particular subset of religious folk that hold a particular belief. They are in the minority, so his candidacy will hardly be threatened (as you'll see when he's elected a second term... even without my vote).
 
  • #138
Char. Limit said:
I don't think it matters that much. Religious people already seem to think Obama's a bad candidate - at least, every religious person I've seen on TV and in the news seems to think that.

You mean right-wing, fundamentalist religious folk on fox? Or all religious people on all TV?
 
  • #139
Pythagorean said:
You mean left-wing, fundamentalist religious folk on fox? Or all religious people on all TV?

Probably the former. I don't watch all TV, after all. Just the bits that make it to my attention, which is mostly right-wing fundies.
 
  • #140
oops, I said left-wing, meant right-wing. You got the context though : )
 
  • #141
Char. Limit said:
I don't think it matters that much. Religious people already seem to think Obama's a bad candidate - at least, every religious person I've seen on TV and in the news seems to think that.

If Pythagorean's post is correct "Yeah.. it was an obvious backhanded comment. It's very Obama-like. Any argument that it was actually faith-based is either ignorant or deceitful."
my guess is more than a few Independents and Moderates will take note of the insincerity.
 
  • #142
mheslep said:
I posted employed fraction of population intentionally to show the difference.
You have to be very careful with interpreting E/P trends during a period when baby boomers are dropping (like flies) out of the workforce.

On a related note: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-02-03/payrolls-in-u-s-jumped-243-000-in-january-unemployment-rate-drops-to-8-3-.html
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #143
WhoWee said:
... we got a quick look under the tent and now understand the President makes decisions based on his religious beliefs.
Not following exactly how we arrived at that. Please explain?
The alternative is not very nice - is it?
What is the (only) alternative you have in mind?
 
  • #144
Gokul43201 said:
You have to be very careful with interpreting E/P trends during a period when baby boomers are dropping (like flies) out of the workforce.

On a related note: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-02-03/payrolls-in-u-s-jumped-243-000-in-january-unemployment-rate-drops-to-8-3-.html

Good point, I happened to look at stats for OH yesterday - approx 11,000 per month are turning 65 and retiring.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #145
Gokul43201 said:
Not following exactly how we arrived at that. Please explain? What is the (only) alternative you have in mind?

My response was in the context of Pythagorean's post
"Yeah.. it was an obvious backhanded comment. It's very Obama-like. Any argument that it was actually faith-based is either ignorant or deceitful. Ignorance is easy to forgive. I'm pretty ignorant about politics, myself. Social sciences are vastly complex! "
 
  • #146
WhoWee said:
My response was in the context of Pythagorean's post
"Yeah.. it was an obvious backhanded comment. It's very Obama-like. Any argument that it was actually faith-based is either ignorant or deceitful. Ignorance is easy to forgive. I'm pretty ignorant about politics, myself. Social sciences are vastly complex! "
Yes, I read Pyth's post, but still don't follow your line of reasoning (it's been a long week). Maybe it's just that I see more alternatives that you have in mind.

Is it not possible, for instance, for the President to arrive at an idea independently of his religion, and seek wider acceptance for that idea from a religious electorate by pointing out a perceived connection to similar ideas from religious texts?
 
  • #147
Gokul43201 said:
Yes, I read Pyth's post, but still don't follow your line of reasoning (it's been a long week). Maybe it's just that I see more alternatives that you have in mind.

Is it not possible, for instance, for the President to arrive at an idea independently of his religion, and seek wider acceptance for that idea from a religious electorate by pointing out a perceived connection to similar ideas from religious texts?

Agreed, there are a lot of possibilities.
 
  • #148
Gokul43201 said:
You have to be very careful with interpreting E/P trends during a period when baby boomers are dropping (like flies) out of the workforce.
Yep:
mheslep said:
E/P has its flaws too, as people simply retiring will lower E/P.
though not 'very' careful, as there are still many more turning 16 every day than 65.

Gokul43201 said:
On a related note: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-02-03/payrolls-in-u-s-jumped-243-000-in-january-unemployment-rate-drops-to-8-3-.html
That's good news, though people should be even more careful with the BLS seasonally adjusted unemployment rate. BLS typically adds a big swag to the January numbers for seasonable adjustment, IIRC last year 1.3 million jobs, just tacked on, to compensate for what they assume will the right correction to the post holiday layoffs. And as mentioned above those that give up and stop looking drive the BLS unemployment figure down.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #149
phoenix:\\ said:
So, in other words, it's your opinion that 20 million people are unemployed but want work?
I'm saying it is a fact that for most of the last decade ~63% of the US population was employed, and it is a fact that now and for the last two years ~58.5% of the population of 311 million is employed.
 
  • #150
Those two may be facts, but what isn't a fact is 20 million people unemployed and looking for work.
 

Similar threads

RIP James (Jimmy ) Earl Carter Jr, 100, 39th President of US
Replies
4
Views
1K
News JWST may be shut down by DOGE
Replies
13
Views
975
RIP Bill Moyers (1934 - 2025)
Replies
2
Views
347
News Obama planning to nominate a new Justice to US Supreme Court
2
Replies
87
Views
8K
News RIP Walter Mondale, 93, former VP and Senator from Minnesota
Replies
1
Views
1K
News Who Was Behind the Death of Alexei Navalny?
Replies
44
Views
5K
News Obama in India: What Can Be Achieved?
Replies
9
Views
2K
RIP David McCullough, the Pulitzer Prize-winning author and historian
Replies
1
Views
1K
RIP Rosalynn Carter, former first lady, wife of President Jimmy Carter
Replies
1
Views
950
News Obama- this is my last election year
Replies
20
Views
5K

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top