I assume these days that most high-ranking politicians were discovered at young ages and groomed for success by the Deep State. If one fizzled or became difficult suddenly his "meteoric" rise would stop and the offers would dry up.
For example, Obama. The son of a CIA honeypot and a Kenyan high-ranking official, who lived abroad much of h…
I assume these days that most high-ranking politicians were discovered at young ages and groomed for success by the Deep State. If one fizzled or became difficult suddenly his "meteoric" rise would stop and the offers would dry up.
For example, Obama. The son of a CIA honeypot and a Kenyan high-ranking official, who lived abroad much of his young life, and who had absolutely no accomplishments. But he went from high school pot head to transferring to Columbia, working at CIA fronts, Harvard law, state senator, u.s. senator---all without a single known accomplishment to earn those posts or to mark him out as anything beyond a timecard-puncher. He, to me, clearly seems to be a guy the Deep State started helping in college to move ahead because he fit a personality type helpful to them. Walz seems similar, but at a lesser level--- it took until after his drunk driving incident for him to sober up publicly and become Deep State front man material.
I've long wondered what all those Iowa tests were about back in school they made you take going back to 4th grade. I've come to suspect they are used by the Deep State to ID kids useful to them, so they can follow and groom people all the way up the ladder.
That's because you have bats in the belfry. Obama is someone who you would expect to get "affirmative action" treatment from Columbia and Harvard and all sorts of usual suspects and the rest is brain fever on your part.
He didn't get in to Columbia straight away, he transferred there all the way from the West Coast's funky liberal arts college Occidental. He also worked for a CIA front organization and did "community organizing" without a single accomplishment anyone remembers. And then got elected to the Illinois senate and did not vote on a single bill besides 1 pro-abortion vote. And in the U.S. Senate he was a similar non-entity besides his speeches ---never ushering in bills or lobbying for them.
And that's besides the fact that at Columbia no one remembered him going (e.g. he was a non-entity and forgettable) and at Harvard Law he didn't even bother to write the required student article---despite being *president* of the freaking law review.
Affirmative action doesn't get you the Senate or the Presidency or working for CIA front organizations. While AA helped him, if you can't see this guy after all that that Obama isn't just an affirmative action case but was also guided by some mysterious invisible hand all the way to the top despite no accomplishments I can't help you, because you have bats in your belfry.
That he went through ("funky"?) Occidental before transferring to Columbia indicates that he couldn't have done it through ordinary (though repulsive) racial discrimination how?
And [in] "the Illinois senate [Obama] did not vote on a single bill besides 1 pro-abortion vote"??? The Wikipedia article on this says "He won re-election in 1998 and 2002. During his Senate tenure, Obama was involved with a wide range of legislation." BAD legislation I wouldn't doubt, but you've GOT TO be a NUT to think that only one vote taken is remotely possible. Donors expect votes in return for the money they give.
I don't need to fisk you further. You've exposed yourself to be completely out to lunch.
129 times Obama voted present to sidestep any major decision. Except abortion. Obama loved killing those babies.
Do some research besides unreliable, untrustworthy, far-left Wikipedia next time, son. I've done my fisking of you, you've exposed yourself to be completely out to lunch and a liar.
From YOUR link: "Q: How many times did Obama vote 'present' as a state senator?
A: He did so 129 times, which represents a little more than 3 percent of his total votes."
You, before: "And then got elected to the Illinois senate and did not vote on a single bill besides 1 pro-abortion vote."
So now you've factchecked yourself and got told, embarrassingly, that he voted 129 * 100/3 = 4300 (forty-three-hundred!) times. No, #I# did not need to do research to learn that Obama certainly did not "not vote on a single bill besides 1" but I had already guessed and said that YOU are nuts enough to have to research such things.
lmao. So you agree Obama refrained from voting on more than a hundred pieces of legislation and never ushered one in, all to keep his record clear from controversy. Now you're just arguing on how many he did vote .
Game, set, match, little liar. ;)
And now we know Andrew Phillips agrees Obama was a Deep State selected-and-pushed candidate with no accomplishments to his record, only positions held, but he's desperately trying to blow some squid ink up to cover up that fact. A now-obvious Deep State troll, like from Kamabla's campaign or DNC in general, given his personal hurt feelings over Obama and Chinese Timmy.
I assume these days that most high-ranking politicians were discovered at young ages and groomed for success by the Deep State. If one fizzled or became difficult suddenly his "meteoric" rise would stop and the offers would dry up.
For example, Obama. The son of a CIA honeypot and a Kenyan high-ranking official, who lived abroad much of his young life, and who had absolutely no accomplishments. But he went from high school pot head to transferring to Columbia, working at CIA fronts, Harvard law, state senator, u.s. senator---all without a single known accomplishment to earn those posts or to mark him out as anything beyond a timecard-puncher. He, to me, clearly seems to be a guy the Deep State started helping in college to move ahead because he fit a personality type helpful to them. Walz seems similar, but at a lesser level--- it took until after his drunk driving incident for him to sober up publicly and become Deep State front man material.
I've long wondered what all those Iowa tests were about back in school they made you take going back to 4th grade. I've come to suspect they are used by the Deep State to ID kids useful to them, so they can follow and groom people all the way up the ladder.
"He, to me, clearly seems to be..."
That's because you have bats in the belfry. Obama is someone who you would expect to get "affirmative action" treatment from Columbia and Harvard and all sorts of usual suspects and the rest is brain fever on your part.
He didn't get in to Columbia straight away, he transferred there all the way from the West Coast's funky liberal arts college Occidental. He also worked for a CIA front organization and did "community organizing" without a single accomplishment anyone remembers. And then got elected to the Illinois senate and did not vote on a single bill besides 1 pro-abortion vote. And in the U.S. Senate he was a similar non-entity besides his speeches ---never ushering in bills or lobbying for them.
And that's besides the fact that at Columbia no one remembered him going (e.g. he was a non-entity and forgettable) and at Harvard Law he didn't even bother to write the required student article---despite being *president* of the freaking law review.
Affirmative action doesn't get you the Senate or the Presidency or working for CIA front organizations. While AA helped him, if you can't see this guy after all that that Obama isn't just an affirmative action case but was also guided by some mysterious invisible hand all the way to the top despite no accomplishments I can't help you, because you have bats in your belfry.
That he went through ("funky"?) Occidental before transferring to Columbia indicates that he couldn't have done it through ordinary (though repulsive) racial discrimination how?
And [in] "the Illinois senate [Obama] did not vote on a single bill besides 1 pro-abortion vote"??? The Wikipedia article on this says "He won re-election in 1998 and 2002. During his Senate tenure, Obama was involved with a wide range of legislation." BAD legislation I wouldn't doubt, but you've GOT TO be a NUT to think that only one vote taken is remotely possible. Donors expect votes in return for the money they give.
I don't need to fisk you further. You've exposed yourself to be completely out to lunch.
lol. Cooked: Voting Present: Obama and the Illinois Senate 1999-2004
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/2158244013515684
https://www.factcheck.org/2008/09/obamas-legislative-record/
https://archive.vn/soQ1P
129 times Obama voted present to sidestep any major decision. Except abortion. Obama loved killing those babies.
Do some research besides unreliable, untrustworthy, far-left Wikipedia next time, son. I've done my fisking of you, you've exposed yourself to be completely out to lunch and a liar.
From YOUR link: "Q: How many times did Obama vote 'present' as a state senator?
A: He did so 129 times, which represents a little more than 3 percent of his total votes."
You, before: "And then got elected to the Illinois senate and did not vote on a single bill besides 1 pro-abortion vote."
So now you've factchecked yourself and got told, embarrassingly, that he voted 129 * 100/3 = 4300 (forty-three-hundred!) times. No, #I# did not need to do research to learn that Obama certainly did not "not vote on a single bill besides 1" but I had already guessed and said that YOU are nuts enough to have to research such things.
lmao. So you agree Obama refrained from voting on more than a hundred pieces of legislation and never ushered one in, all to keep his record clear from controversy. Now you're just arguing on how many he did vote .
Game, set, match, little liar. ;)
And now we know Andrew Phillips agrees Obama was a Deep State selected-and-pushed candidate with no accomplishments to his record, only positions held, but he's desperately trying to blow some squid ink up to cover up that fact. A now-obvious Deep State troll, like from Kamabla's campaign or DNC in general, given his personal hurt feelings over Obama and Chinese Timmy.