Obama “Lack Of Supermajority” Lie

The simplest, and most efficient, way of thinking is by not lying. Lying consistently requires to know both some elements of reality and the lies one adorned them with. Lying is neurologically taxing.

The so-called “Democrats” lied about why they did nothing in the early part of Obama’s reign. They claimed it was because of the Republicans, a nebulous reason. Indeed, the so-called Democrats are Republicans in disguise, and they did not do anything for “We The People“, because they identify as “We The Plutocrats” (“WE”, as Hillary Clinton admitted to Goldman Sachs partners, as she talked to them, admitting she was as good as a Goldman Sachs partner).

The main difference between Republicans and Democrats seems to be that the Democrats lie better, so they can afford to foster more regressive policies.

Diane Feinstein, one of Hillary Clinton’s main support, was a pure politician her entire life. Feinstein claims to be worth around 50 million dollars. She will conveniently forget to tell you her husband is at least a billionaire. We are demoncrats, and the demon, the devil, Pluto, made us lie, so please forget it. (And how come, as a pure politician earning no more than $160,000, she made 50 million dollars?) These people rule the world, not just the USA: Feinstein’s husband, Richard Blum, was a major investor in China… while his wife prepared and reigned, over pertinent legislation.

Sometimes, of course, one should lie. Say, if a dying child is anxious, full care requires lying with no limits whatsoever. Just tell the child she better sleep and will be refreshed when she wakes up.

However, in a politico-social context, lying is never a good idea. If one is on the side of We The People. Reciprocally, lying is how plutocrats rule. And they go all the way, inventing religions to justify their horrors (the most famous cases being Christianism and Islam, both set-up by dictators, respectively Saint Constantine, Roman emperor, self-described “13th Apostle“, and Prophet Muhammad, self-described “Messenger of God“; the latter imitating the former).

Obama was the do-nothing president. OK, Obama did a lot for plutocrats, transferring trillions of federal debt to the richest people and corporations in the world. As I called it ironically, TARP, Transferin Assets To the Richest People. But Obama did nothing much for “We The People“, besides very effective lip service. To justify doing nothing, to his supporters, from day one, Obama accused the “Republicans”. He just could not convince them, Republicans, he said. That was true, but it was also a lie. A true lie. Obama did not need to convince any Republicans. Not a single one. He was in control. In total control. (But is a child in control? Of course not: a child does not know enough. A fortiori a puppet of Goldman Sachs, Gates, Apple, etc. )

Lying Has Helped Rulers For Millennia, But It Does Not Help Civilization

Lying Has Helped Rulers For Millennia, But It Does Not Help Civilization

The Nazis used, and advertised, the big lie technique because they believed they had achieved a superior understanding of the human condition, so it did not matter what ways they used to implement their rule. There were enormous lies implemented by self-described “democrats” in the last 24 years. Passing laws in the service of what turned out to be plutocrats who have names: Hillary Clinton considered major plutocrats (Gates, Cook, etc.) as potential Vice Presidential choices (before she realized that would compromise her chances too much) .

While Obama claimed he could not do anything without the Republicans, the democrats had a majority in the House of Representatives, and the democrats had a majority in the US Senate. So was Obama lying? (Silly question, sorry.)

No, say demoncrats. US Senate tradition (since 1993!) is that one can talk and talk and talk and talk in the Senate, and block any bill. Once Democratic Senator Byrd talked around 24 hours. Continuously.

However, filibusters can be overruled when one has 60 votes in the US Senate, a SUPERMAJORITY. Obama had such a supermajority, for many months perhaps six months. He could have also forced a 12 months bullet proof supermajority by forcing two ailing democratic  senators to resign

In January 2009, there were 56 Senate Democrats and two independent senators who caucused with Democrats. This combined total of 58 included Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-Mass.), whose health was failing and was unable to be at the Senate everyday. As a practical matter, in the early months of Obama’s presidency, the Senate Democratic caucus had 57 members on the floor for day-to-day legislating.

In April 2009, Pennsylvania’s Arlen Specter switched parties. This meant there were 57 Democrats, and two independents who caucused with Democrats, for a caucus of 59.

On June 30 2009, Sen. Al Franken (D-Minn.) was sworn in, after a lengthy recount and legal fight. At that point, the Democratic caucus reached 60, but two of its members, Kennedy and Byrd, were SOMETIMES unavailable for votes.

In August 2009, Kennedy died, and Democratic caucus again stood at 59.

In September 2009, Sen. Paul Kirk (D-Mass.) filled up Kennedy’s vacancy, bringing the caucus back to 60. At this point, the democrats were back with a SUPERMAJORITY. Senator Byrd’s health continued to deteriorate. A forceful president with a progressive agenda could have made him resign. But Obama had no progressive agenda whatsoever. Neither did his helpers and sycophants. The leading ones are all establishment, they are happy wioth the establishment.

In January 2010, Sen. Scott Brown (R-Mass.) replaced Kirk on January 19, 2010, bringing the Democratic caucus back down to 59 again.

In June 2010, Sen. Byrd died. Byrd’s replacement, a Democrat, Carte Goodwin, was sworn two weeks later. So the caucus stayed at 59.

Obama said, it’s all the fault of the Republicans, and here is this Obamacare, my “signature achievement“, plutocrats will take care of you, as long as I send them your tax dollars.

When FDR became president, he enforced a progressive agenda on his first day. In the first month, Obama did just one progressive thing: sign, with great fanfare, the evacuation of arbitrary detention at Guantanamo. Well, not really. Guantanamo is still in operation, eight years later, with people inside, arbitrarily detained. The Do-Nothing president really did nothing. His true signature achievement. (Except for arbitrary drone lethal strikes, for all to see, a new judicial precedent, and savagely hunting those who reveal some bad actions of the US government, some of them unlawful.)

A progressive president needs a supermajority only for a couple of hours. In the early twentieth century, one morning, in a couple of hours, two laws passed: one set-up the Income Tax Law, setting up the IRS. The other law passed within the hour was the Foundation Law.  

The reigning democrats are lying. They are Republicans in disguise. Republicans brought up on a Reagan psychological diet.

In the last debate Hillary Clinton attacked Trump, because Trump had attacked then reigning president Ronald Reagan in 1987… with exactly the same position Trump has today.

Need I say more?

Yes, I do. I pointed out the preceding, at the time, in 2009, as it happened. Much later, the “Tea Party” was created later. So I got to be called “Tea Party”. Last week, some people on the Internet, in public, called me a “liar, racist, xenophobe”, and added even more flattering qualifiers, for daring to say that Obama had a supermajority, for many months, in the beginning of his presidency. Some added that I reiterated “Republican talking points“. Whatever. (If politicians adopt my ideas, i am not going to complain.)

I follow the truth, an attempt to espouse reality. Politically I am somewhat on the left of Bernie Sanders, but also in the future, and that means, on the side of Mother Earth. I know Obama, and wish this will help him to stop lying. The truth is that Obama wanted more progress than he got, because most “Democrats” are rather “Demoncrats”: just ask how come some of them made hundreds of millions during their strictly political careers. Say ask the two top California democrats, Nancy Pelosi, who headed Congress for six years, and Diane Feinstein, the Senior Senator of California. Pelosi is the richest US representative. She is married to an investment banker, Paul Pelosi, the sort of people Obama helped, Clinton breathe with (Goldman Sachs). Obama will say he did a lot to crack down on bankers. Right. And another lie. Another true lie: the Obama administration cracked down on commercial banking, and on banking for “We The People”. (Worldwide, it turned out, as American jurisdiction is brandished that way.)  Meanwhile, investment banking was helped, thanks to the pernicious pretext that banking needed help (yes, commercial banking needed help as Quantitative Easing made it unprofitable, while derivatives were allowed to run amok, same as before, profiting investment bankers…)

“Democrats” never envisioned any progressive law under Obama-Biden. Obama passed several laws that were such a give-away to the wealthiest families, through their banks, that the GOP would never have dreamed to try to pass them before, so outrageously pro-wealth those laws were.
Later, when asked what happened, the Obama administration claimed it was all the fault of the GOP, because Obama did not have a “supermajority”. The retort was not only besides the point and a red herring, but it was also a lie. But it transformed Democrat public opinion into anger against the GOP.

There are system of lies, just like there are systems of thought, and the least plutocracy can do, is to lie systematically. To lie, or not to be, that is the existential question which defines plutocracy.

The road to hell is paved with lies.

Patrice Ayme’

Tags: , , , , , ,

34 Responses to “Obama “Lack Of Supermajority” Lie”

  1. benign Says:

    Patrice –

    “To lie, or not to be [a plutocrat], that is the existential question which defines plutocracy.”

    I have amended your sentence to reflect that this is a class thing, that you do not affront your classmates in any way. The spoils are attained by monopolistic manipulation of commerce using government and distributed amongst themselves. Our plutocrats are a disgusting group of cretins lacking in empathy for the rest of the species, which they hope to exterminate.

    The truth, like the rest of humanity, is expendable in the service of the plutocrats’ class gain. As I have pointed out, genocide (or more simply, mass murder) has succeeded historically when one’s group has the advantage, so evolution has not prepared the plutocrats for the possibility of losing [a nuclear war, in the present context of their pawn queen Hillary’s heeling to the party line to demonize Putin and start a war with Russia to enrich Daddy Warbucks].

    Congratulations, Patrice, you are getting it. The big question now is whether Putin will be good to his word not to attack Europe. I personally expect him to respond proportionately to provocation, but depending on how demented our plutocrats are (Stratfor.com has said an agenda item for the 2020s is taking Russia’s nukes away…), he could be provoked into World War III.

    I think Putin has shown admirable restraint so far. I hope you have changed your opinion of him. We shall see.



    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      As the head of strategic command, a 4 star admiral, said, and he was quoted here, Putin is an opportunist (so were Hitler, Stalin… or Xi, is). Opportunists sometimes miscompute (Hitler did not expect France to go to war in 1939). One thing is sure it is that Obama had let opportunity grow (he did not start the movement, though). So now, lots of dictators feel that opportunity is smiling to them. Meanwhile, major plutocrats feel they can get away with anything. This is the mood cocktail which brought both WWI and WWII.
      Changing one’s opinion of Putin is changing one’s opinion of opportunity. Putin wants a modern state, but then he cuts down on free spirits. Can’t work.


      • Benign Says:

        Invasion and occupation are expensive, I doubt Putin sees much appeal. An angered, more than proportionate response to provocation that would tip the neocons into nuking him seems more likely. Then we get nuked.

        We have our own ways of suppressing free spirits. We neglect them to death.


  2. Gloucon X Says:

    A few supplemental points:

    A sure sign of a plutocracy is having an unelected Supreme Court that can veto legislation passed by politicians who were elected with a large mandate. The right-wing Supreme Court had the power to veto Obamacare and inexplicably failed to do so. I think Justice Roberts decided that it would look too undemocratic to veto Obama’s only semi-popular achievement, especially after having handing the presidency to the person who finished second in the popular vote in 2000.

    Powerful Democratic senator Dick Durbin said that the Wall St banks “owned the place” referring to Congress.

    Pro-plutocracy Dem Senator Max Baucus Senate Finance Committee Chairman, banned representatives from groups calling for single-payer health care from the discussion in 2009. From 2003-08, Baucus received $3,973,485 from the health sector, including $852,813 from pharmaceutical companies. A 2006 study by Public Citizen found that between 1999 and 2005 Baucus, along with former Senate majority leader Bill Frist, took in the most special-interest money of any senator.

    The entire disgusting process disillusioned left leaning voters causing the loss of the Congress in 2010. That seems to be the goal of pro-plutocracy Democratic Party leadership. They don’t want to control Congress because then left leaning voters will see that they truly do not desire to pass popular legislation that would help the people at the expense of their plutocrat donors. Both Bill Clinton and Obama seemed happy with the Republican control of Congress, it absolved them of responsibility to do anything for the people, while their plutocratic donors continued to grow even richer. Hillary will follow this model.


    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      Indeed, Gloucon, indeed:
      Notice Baucus is a fifth generation plutocrat, by himself.

      Your analysis that the self-described “Dems” don’t want to control Congress is very astute. Obama was a Republican president, and we are supposed to elect the next Republican president, Hillary Clinton. They succeeded though to make people believe that they could not pass anything real progressive under Obama, because of the Republicans… Hence my supermajority essay… After being copiously insulted on the Internet as Trump noticed this recently (but not in 2009, when he gave half a million to the Clinton Foundation!!!!!! As he himself admitted…)


  3. dominique deux Says:

    A perfect parallel story happened in France: when Hollande was elected President, his party held a majority in the two Parliamentary chambers – the upper one had been a stronghold of the Conservatives, yet was taken too. It also held a huge majority of the regional executives. A supermajority which was left unused.
    The one remaining redoubt of the Conservatives was the Constitutional Council, and they made very good use of it, for example blocking his feeble attempt at increasing the taxation of the super-rich.

    From then on he did practically nothing, and when he did, in a haphazard way, it was only to beat a hasty retreat when Conservatives took to the streets.

    He was expected to be a force for change in the EU, and did nothing.

    His main achievement is one he achieved through sheer inertia, by vocally concurring with the EC’s austerian madness, but making sure it was not implemented in France – deftly avoiding the boots of both Barroso and Merkel. In a way he saved the French economy. He cannot boast about this though. So he is, rightly, perceived as having done… nothing.

    As a result his despairing party is dead in the water and so is his career.


    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      Hollande has fewer excuses than Obama. Neither can be liked. Because both lied, big time. I spent years working for Obama, and would not have worked a minute for him if I had known that, as soon as elected he and his surrounding would just become absolutely mad with power. You have to understand what happens: after the election, the president, and THOSE AROUND HIM/her are surrounded by a veritable army. Not dozens of military, but HUNDREDS, all in black uniforms (like the SS) all with guns, some five foot long.
      And there you are, with your hand on the president neck, not an officer/executioner in sight…
      At this point what all think is: ‘how to I keep that going?’ Obviously by being nice to those with maximum power, the plutocrats, then and there, your best, closest friends.

      That’s why one needs people who are a bove that, like Sanders… Or Trump. Trump, as Hillarey let it slip during a debate, was a declared enemy of Reagan, 30 years ago, in exactly the same terms as today… Hillary herself would be my candidate, if I believe she would do exactly what she proposed to do, BUT: SHE LIES (as she explained in recordings). And also the Dem leaders don’t want Congress, so they can pretend they have to gop on with the plutocratic program… Hillary wants to become a billionaire (or her daughter, hubby, whatever).

      Hollande is set for life, he can just be Hollande from now on, and has already started, boasting that he ordered covert executions, etc… Amusingly, Obama has one up on him, as he did comedy sketches, in recdent weeks….


  4. SDM Says:

    What do you foresee should Drumpf win the election? Do you see anti-pluto tax plan and if so please explain how his stated tax plan will do anything to reduce plutocratic accumulation of wealth? What will he do to reform health care? What will his policy be with Putin, UN, NATO, etc? North Korea? ISIL? Please offer some actual policy points that you see as having any beneficial consequence. To date he has little stated policy although he claims his “plans” will be terrific.

    HRC deserves criticism for her plutocratic ties and yet you also note that her policies, as stated, are favorable. So HRC is less than candid and has ties to Wall Street. Sanders and Warren are very popular and could wield some significant sway in an HRC administration. So is Drumpf your man because he is not HRC? Or if not, what is your practical assessment of the political situation?

    Obama’s first term was woefully lacking in accomplishment and revealed the power of plutocracy in both the Dems and GOP. Would a Dem Senate majority with HRC be the same as in 2008?


    • Gloucon X Says:

      Trump won’t win. He might have won if he hadn’t attacked women and minorities in such an unnecessarily stupid way, and if he had run as an independent like Perot. The Republican Party has become such an insular and regional party that I doubt it will ever win the presidency again. Pro-plutocratic free-market ideology, Christian fanaticism, attacks on minorities and women, and support for endless war just won’t get you to 50% anymore, even in a country as stupid as this one. Demographic changes alone have doomed them, non-Hispanic whites are only about 60% of the population compared to nearly 90% from 1900-1970.


    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      If Trump got elected, he would NOT be a revolution by himself.
      Contrarily to what he says. Expect a change of mood, rather than a change of policy. The satanic corporations who worked with Obama (Amazon, etc.) would get hit relatively fast. But expect a glacial pace otherwise. The Transatlantic Parnership is already been shot down by the French and other Germans, and the French would be delighted to see Trump crack-down on NATO…

      Still, either Trump or Clinton, I expect a serious coming out of the OBAMA SLUMBER PARTY.

      HRC, secretly, and her wealthy supporters, not secretly, want her to preside over the Republican Party, not a supermajority as Obama had in 2009… This way the plutocracy will be left to grow in peace…


  5. Gmax Says:

    Such liars, the lot of them. Makes one want to barf. And we are supposed to vote for that liar, Hillary, just because we believe her this time? I mean did you ever see anyone who has such a fake smile?


  6. Jim Herson Says:

    Jim Herson: Patrice,

    Your ‘Obama enjoyed a senate supermajority two years before taking office’ was entertaining. But your name calling took it from laughable to sad.

    Unfortunately, I can’t engage with you. Once you lied about basic facts, like dates and senate majorities, I had to stop reading. There’s no unscrambling that egg. Take care of yourself.


    ps. The source of a numerical fact doesn’t change the numerical fact. HuffPost and FoxNews have the same hard dates and majority numbers (including Sanders). Good luck arguing bias with those two on the same page.


    Democrats’ Senate Supermajority Not As Strong As Advertised

    As I said, I can not and will not engage with you. You made a false statement [that Obama had a supermajority from 2006-2010]. But rather than correct an obvious mistake, you attacked. If we can not agree on facts then there’s no point in discussing counterfactuals (like, could Obama have rammed through a progressive agenda when he had a small supermajority window? Obviously not since it took all his political capital and skill to get blue dog democrats onboard with the ACA. Oddly, your original statement, that it was the democrats not the republicans who blocked Obama, contradicts your later argument that if Obama was a real progressive he’d only need a few hours to enact his agenda shoving it through an implied rubber-stamp democratic supermajority.)

    Of course, I also disagree with your entire underlying premise of railroading through an agenda without opposition support. That makes for bad policy and a toxic legislative environment.
    Take care of yourself. You should reconsider your confrontational argument style. It undermines whatever legit arguments you might have.


    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      I never said that Obama was president in 2006. I was with him in 2008, and he was not president, I can testify to that. If you brushed on your reading comprehension, you would realize i said Democrats controlled Congress starting in 2006. Or maybe, a more sinister explanation is that you want me to sound like an idiot, so you fake thorough stupidity, with evil intent, weakly submerged below standart formulas.

      You called me a liar, I call you someone who insults people without reading what they have to say. It is as if you enjoy to hurt people. And keep on hurting them as much as you can. Fact is you are an insulter, and you have insulted me. You want to stay an insulter, at the cost of refusing to look at evidence. You did engage me by calling me a liar, and worse. Now that you have insulted me, in public, you persist and sign, by saying you will not engage me anymore. Because you want to preserve your precious insult, endow it with some validity. After all, you will say, I did not show otherwise. You can’t even read the titles of the links you gave. The FOX link says that Obama had a supermajority. In my essay, I detailed every twist and turn of that supermajority, which lasted months. I am not a liar. it is a lie to call me a liar, and you can then twist what I said, it does not make it so. People who call me a liar don’t need to tell me to take care of myself. I take care of the truth, that’s my calling. I did write a detailed essay about the supermajority (which lasted many months, and could have lasted a year, solid, with 2 minor tweaks). That’s for people like you, who don’t seem to be even able to read one title from FOX News. But i guess my generosity will stay unappreciated, as it with the chipmunk who crunches below, as I pass by.

      Patrice Ayme


  7. Clinton: Weird, Weirder, Weaker | Patrice Ayme's Thoughts Says:

    […] role under Obama: as he did not resign while sick, his absence provided Obama occasionally with the lack of supermajority pretext he used to do nothing during his first year, while claiming that it was the Republicans who made him do nothing at […]


  8. Vote For Truth & Other Recommendations | Patrice Ayme's Thoughts Says:

    […] belongs to a party whose elite has done the opposite of what they claimed they wanted to do, and lied about why and how that happened. Moreover hers of idiots out there, believe said elite of plutocrats. For 24 years. Yesterday I […]


  9. Obama: “American People Voted To Shake Things Up” | Patrice Ayme's Thoughts Says:

    […] was no SERIOUS plan for SERIOUS change, and no SERIOUS will for SERIOUS change on the part of the Democratic supermajority, crammed with plutocrats and their […]


  10. Obama’s Fault | Patrice Ayme's Thoughts Says:

    […] National Assembly, and passes laws. So Obama and his Demoncrats controlled all, so what did the do? They did what Demons do: they lied. Donald Trump is already demonstrating that a US president with a simple majority can govern (or, […]


  11. Turk Says:

    So Patrice Ayme is a liar, good to know.

    Now, pathetic lying troll Patrice Ayme, I shall show explain why you’re a pathetic lying troll:

    Obama did not have a supermajority when he came into office in 2009. When he stepped into office on January 20, 2009, there were 56 Democrats and 2 Independents who caucused with Democrats. That makes a total of 58 Democrats. There should’ve been 59, but Al Franken, who won against Republican incumbent Norm Coleman, was still locked up in recount after recount demanded by Coleman.

    So Franken didn’t officially win until well into 2009, and did not get sworn into office until July 7, 2009.


    It was well known by 2009 that Ted Kennedy was battling brain cancer. He collapsed at the inaugural luncheon on January 20, 2009 and had been taken to the hospital. Robert Byrd had also left the same luncheon, and while at the time he and his staff said he was fine, in reality he was sick.


    Kennedy did return back to office in March 5, 2009. But during this time, he wasn’t showing up to many votes due to his health. Robert Byrd was also missing votes due to his health issues.


    Then on April 28, 2009, Republican Senator Arlen Specter switched parties and became a Democrat.


    At this point, if everyone who was sworn into office showed up, Democrats had 59 votes.

    Then in May, 2009, it became known that Robert Byrd was ill. However Byrd never checked into a hospital until sometime in early June, when the public became aware that he was pretty sick.


    So now, Obama, while on paper appears to have 59 votes, really only has 58 as Byrd was out sick.

    Than as I said previously, Al Franken was finally sworn into office on July 7, 2009. This puts Democrats at 60 votes… on paper. But in reality, 59 due to Byrd being hospitalized.

    Now Byrd did return back to the Senate on July 21, 2009, which finally gave Obama the 60 vote supermajority! Of course that’s when Byrd and Kennedy actually show up, as they continue to have health issues and miss votes.

    But that lasted about a month… as Ted Kennedy passed away on August 25, 2009 after losing his battle to brain cancer.


    This brings Obama back to 59 votes in the Senate.

    After Kennedy’s death, Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick gets approval from the states legislative bodies to change the states election laws to allow him to appoint a interim successor. Normally Massachusetts election law requires the seat to remain vacant until a special election fills it. So in comes Paul Kirk, a Democrat.


    So on paper, Obama now has 60 votes. But again, Robert Byrd isn’t showing up to every session because he’s ill.

    But he shows up enough to let Democrats pass the few bills they manage to get in, such as the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.

    However, Obama’s supermajority sees it’s end when on January 19, 2010 Republican nominee Scott Brown won to finish Ted Kennedy’s term.

    He was sworn into office on February 4, 2010, replacing Paul Kirk. And thus ending Obama’s brief, about four to five months depending on how often Byrd showed up (because again, the man was sick, and he ended up dying less than a year later on June 28, 2010).

    So contrary to your flat out lies Patrice, Obama did not have a supermajority for two years, nor did he waste it away.


    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      Turk: You use fighting words. In other words, you insult me.
      All of this to make an elaborated argument for why in the Senate, although technically and formally it looked as if Obama had a supermajority, actually he did not. So and so had a headache, so and so was out sick, etc…
      That is not the point.

      Obama could have passed progressive executive orders, as Trump did. Obama did not try. (Instead he passed anti-green and anti-democratic executive orders, aplenty.)

      The Obama controlled US Congress could have passed the advanced, progressive laws… or transform Obama’s progressive orders into laws. Or at least debate said progressive propositions. There were none, or very few.
      Then they could have tried to pass the laws. In the Senate.
      Instead liars have been using the fact that, on a given day, it was not clear Obama had a super majority in the Senate… to avoid working on ANY progressive laws, WHATSOEVER.

      Obama could act decisively: on day one he cut hydrogen research. He wanted batteries and FRACKING instead. Obama’s hyper wealthy “friends” were invested in this, it was easy to persuade him that batteries and fracking were the way to go, and only them.

      And Obama transferred at least 4.5 TRILLION dollars…. to the world’s wealthiest banks, which transferred the money to the world’s wealthiest families.

      The fact is Obama is just a servant of the HYPERCRACY. Obama served as the little boy serving the big white masters. Under Obama health care cost went up, life expectancy went down, the US became the greatest fossil fuel producer in the history of the universe, inequality went up, higher than ever, and manufacturing, after a rebound, went down, lower than under George Bush Junior.

      Obama wanted people to pay high prices for their medical drugs, and for their health care, he said it explicitly (85% were supposed to have higher cost). In all this, he could have take progressive executive orders and took plenty of executive orders… Serving hyper wealth…

      People who claim to be progressives and applaud Biden and, or, Obama are liars.

      For a good abstract of what I wrote over the years, long ago:

      The very fact that you insult people shows you know that claiming that Obama didn’t have a supermajority at every single second is crucial. Absent this FAKE reason, the fact remains that the Obama right wing plutocracy and monopoly friendly presidency made Trump’s look like left wing progressive.

      So all what’s left is for FAKE PROGRESSIVES to say somebody had a cold, it was 2 am, somebody was sleeping, somebody got cancer, etc… to explain why Obama transferred 5 TRILLION $ (5,000 billion $) to the hyper wealthy, his friends… and to explain why Obama admired Reagan, or ordered to kill children, personally, with drones, case by case, or gave the explicit order to kill Osama Bin Laden to silence him (instead of capturing Bin Laden for interrogation, which would have exposed the Democrats as having installed Fundamentalist Islam and the wars in the Middle East…).

      The oldest paper in US has a good description of my position about Obama being the opposite of a progressive:



      • Turk Says:

        I’ve debunked your lies and instead of admitting you were wrong like an adult, you continue to double down on lying. Well, can’t expect much from a liar who uses logical fallacies of strawman, red herring, circular reasoning, slippery slope, tu quoque and flat out lies to argue anything.

        Also, liar Patrice Ayme, an executive order is not the same as bill that is passed through Congress. And in order for Obama to have gotten Congress to turn one of his executive orders into laws, still would’ve required a supermajority in the Senate as Republicans were flat out refusing to cooperate. Many of Trump’s executive orders border on being unconstitutional, as they divert funds that Congress has already approved for other projects, without Congressional consent.

        You know what Democrats and Obama were trying to do? They were trying to negotiate with Republicans! Mostly because for most of 2009, Obama didn’t have have a supermajority proof Senate. And also because Obama is a centrist who continued the long line of presidents trying to work and compromise with the opposing party. Something Trump has shown he has little interest in doing unless he wants something.

        Oh look, Patrice is once again ignoring the facts and reality to push her debunked lies and misinformation! And you use a known paper that has been caught spreading flat out lies and misinformation, the New York Post! A garbage paper known for spreading flat out lies and misinformation… no wonder why you’re using it.


        Me calling you a “liar”, is not an attack. It’s just stating a fact. You are a liar Patrice Ayme. You either use completely fabricated information, or you spread misinformation in order to back up your extremely false narrative.

        If you had any integrity or morality in you, you would quit and delete this blog. But you’ve proven you have no integrity or morality. You’re just a far right shill who posts lie after lie, and when faced with the facts, you’ll try to deflect and make up some sad and pathetic excuse.


        • Patrice Ayme Says:

          You are good at insults but not logic, and your knowledge base is nanometric. The entire point is that the OBAMA SUPERMAJORITY LIE consisted in pretending that Obama couldn’t pass any good law because he never had a moment with 60 Senators in the Senate supporting him. But the reality is that there was nothing to support.

          This is not a blog, this is the super philosophical site of the planet. You are calling right wing people who have written everything your own hero (?) faithfully, or rather unfaithfully repeated… I am actually smiling when I am writing this because I know the truth, and you don’t. It’s pretty the exact opposite of what you suggest.


          • Turk Says:

            It’s not an insult when it’s true. And please, don’t project the fact you suck with logic and your knowledge base is nanometric. You’ve literally got caught lying and you’re doubling down on it! You haven’t actually countered a single thing I’ve said, instead you’ve been moving the goalposts and just arguing in circles in order to justify your flat out lies.

            No, your entire FAKE NEWS rant was about how Obama had a supermajority for two years and did nothing. At best, Obama had four to five months of a supermajority… a comprehensive bill takes longer than four or five months to write up and pass through a committee than set for a floor vote. The only reason why they finished the healthcare so fast, is because they already had a blueprint with it from “Romneycare”.

            I’ve got news for you you pathetic lying right wing shill, nothing you’ve written is “philosophical”. This is a far right political blogger site. And your idea of “the truth” is extremely subjective, because lies and misinformation are not “the truth”, it’s just lies and misinformation. So yeah, it’s exactly what I’ve said it is.

            So please, delete this far right political blog you pathetic lying fraud!


          • Patrice Ayme Says:

            Obama had nothing to propose, he needed 4 or 5 hours, but he was terrified of Nancy. So he proposed nothing to rock the boat.
            How do I know? My spouse was Obama’s best friend, starting at age 11.
            Differently from you, I have massaged Obama’s neck.
            Actually, one may even venture to say I was the force behind Obama, too bad he did not deliver… Biden could do better, after all, he is a war criminal… Because he set up that Iraqi war commission.
            I am actually so left wing that I was physically attacked several times, including once in Europe with a home made bomb, by real racists.
            The sort of cataclysmic insults you engage in is baffling in light of the fact you claim you are presumably left wing and for Biden.
            One can recognize there a violence I have seen before.
            Many times, from racists, bankers and Islamists.
            How much do they pay you? The Biden campaign paid eight microinfluencers on Tik Tok, that came out in the Senate yesterday


        • Patrice Ayme Says:

          You think in terms of right vs left. You understood nothing. Right versus left was before. One has to think in terms of “free” versus OWNED. Reuters, which you quote, is OWNED by ONE wealthy family. And so on.
          Trump for example, in proposing lowest drug prices got to the left of the leftmost Democrats.

          Also Biden is a war criminal and criminal against humanity, hey he helped Bush kill three million:



          • Turk Says:

            The stupidity and ignorance of a lying far right shill who supports a rapist, serial sexual harasser, racist, corrupt lying manchild and murder.

            Your argument has nothing to do with “free” or “owned”, it’s all about the left versus the right. That’s all you write about! About how Democrats are bad, Democrats are blind, Democrats lie! Than turn a blind eye to all the bad things Republicans have been doing and lying about! You’re not a philosopher, you’re a political opinion blogger.

            And the lying human trash links his own website that once again uses flat out lies, misinformation to create a right wing story that matches his extremely delusional views!

            Biden was given false information to lead him to that decision to give Bush that power. It’s widely known that contrary to your flat out false narrative, Congress (both Republicans and Democrats) were given extremely skewed intelligence. They never had access to the same reports as Bush had.


            As for the hearing, can you provide proof that there were other “witnesses” aside from the pro-war witnesses that Biden was aware of? Because he called up the witnesses that they knew of from the intelligence. So how can Biden call up witnesses that he doesn’t know exist?

            Not to mention that Bush and Chaney went out of the way to either hide or discredit anyone who provided intelligence that discredited the narrative that they wanted. Lest we forget Joseph C. Wilson who penned “What I didn’t find in Africa” about his own investigations into the claim that Saddam had bought yellowcake uranium from Nigers.

            If Biden is a war criminal for supporting Bush, so is every member of Congress at the time who voted yes, and so is every American who supported the invasion.

            And no, before you go onto another strawman and red herring arguments (that you keep doing instead of stick to the subject), I was anti-war. I was also anti-torture, and believe everyone involved in those programs should be arrested and tried for war crimes and crimes against humanity. But you… you’re committing a crime against humanity by shilling for Trump because you’re such a far right partisan hack you can’t even see it!


          • Patrice Ayme Says:

            You are little more than a violent beast. You come here, and make war on my site. You do not even know me. You go berserk on a technical point: the supermajority. Obama had it, but he had nothing to do with it, that’s the whole point. Obama and Al. used the GOP as an excuse for doing… nothing. You insult me, and you read nothing. You are vile and vicious, and you are probably a whore too, paid to be violent, and make war.

            If you think that a Biden presidency will be vastly different from Trump’s you are also an idiot.
            Biden set up the commission to invent reasons for the war. If you read my essay you will find long quotes from the Guardian which explains part of what Biden did. And it was very evil:

            By the way, I recommended Biden to Obama as VP in 2008. So I can forgive. Like Allah. But they exhausted my patience with what they did next. TARP:

            You do not know what a crime against humanity is because, vicious beast, you have read nothing. If you had you would not be as much of an insane maniac… About nothing… Think, violent beast: what wonderful Obama law did the Obama supermajority in the Senate block? None, the beast, learn. Wisdom does not have to be insulted by vicious beast, beast.


        • Patrice Ayme Says:

          What you call “right” I call “left” apparently. Obama was, and is, a plutophile who gave FIVE TRILLION DOLLARS to the world’s wealthiest people, his friends. But now he is very wealthy himself, so I am sure it’s right by you.
          Hey, why don’t you learn something, war criminal lover?
          This essay of mine is ELEVEN YEARS old, older than the mental age of my most strident insult hurling critics, apparently…


    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      I have massaged Obama’s neck, he betrayed the progressives, that’s personal, but also public:

      From Wikipedia:

      In the November 2008 elections, the Democratic Party increased its majorities in both chambers, giving President Obama a Democratic majority in the legislature for the first two years of his presidency. However, the majority was only filibuster proof for a period of 72 working days while the Senate was actually in session. A new delegate seat was created for the Northern Mariana Islands.[5] The 111th Congress had the most experienced members in history: at the start of the 111th Congress, the average member of the House had served 10.3 years, while the average Senator had served 13.4 years.[6]

      An election dispute over the Minnesota seat previously held by Norm Coleman (R), between Coleman and challenger Al Franken (D), was decided on June 30, 2009, in favor of Franken.[7] Franken’s admission gave the Senate Democratic caucus sixty votes, enough to defeat a filibuster in a party-line vote.[8]


      • Turk Says:

        You seem to forget something. Senate rules state that voting can only be done IN PERSON! As in, you have to be on the Senate floor in order to have your vote count.

        So if Senators don’t show up because they are very ill and hospitalized, or DIED FROM CANCER, or having their swearing in being held off for almost a year due to lawsuits and recounts, yeah Obama didn’t have two years of a supermajority. He barely had half a year at most.

        Please, stop lying Patrice. Anyone who spends five minutes can easily see what a massive lying troll you are.


        • Patrice Ayme Says:

          Everybody can see what a massive stupid you are: Obama did not have to use a supermajority, because he proposed nothing progressive enough that it needed to be rammed in the Senate.


    • Gmax Says:

      You are paid to write such garbage?
      Obama did not been a supermajority, which he had, because he tried to pass NO LAWS HELPING COMMON FOLKS.



What do you think? Please join the debate! The simplest questions are often the deepest!

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: