America's #1 Online Cigar Auction
first, best, biggest!

Last post 7 years ago by Abrignac. 45 replies replies.
Something Strange Happens When Democrats leave office ...
Burner02 Offline
#1 Posted:
Joined: 12-21-2010
Posts: 12,861
As they prepare for their exodus from the White House, the Obamas are about to join another rarified club that of the ruling liberal elite class owning multiple ultra-expensive homes in highly exclusive communities that none in America can afford save the one-percenters. The very same one-percenters whom they rant and rail against as being the greedy, ego-centric millionaires who simply have too much.

Following the likes of Bill and Hillary Clinton who (despite Hillary's claim earlier this year that they left White House dead broke ) somehow managed to educate their daughter at Stanford, Oxford, NYU and Columbia; acquire a $1.7 million estate in Chappaqua and a $2.85 million mansion in Georgetown) and Bernie Sanders who shortly after ending his 2016 presidential bid bought his third home a$600,000 lakefront vacation house on Lake Champlain. Barack and Michelle have real estate designs of their own.

Earlier this year it was revealed that upon his leaving the presidency the Obamas will not be returning to Chicago they will instead be moving into a $6 million, 8,200-square foot, 9-bedroom 12-bathroom mansion in Kalorama, one of the District's most posh, desirable and exclusive neighborhoods in the heart of one of America's wealthiest zip codes.
With daughter Malia off to college that leaves just Barack, Michelle and Sasha until the younger daughter graduates high school in 2018. Nothing says I care about climate change, energy consumption and our CO2 footprint more than keeping an 8,200-square foot house heated and air conditioned year round for just three people. The hypocrisy and do as I say not as I do hubris of all these wealthy climate change proponents is sickening. By the way, the Obama's new home is just two doors down from Clinton campaign manager, John Podesta, who recently lost the most significant campaign of his life.
But that's not the new news. We have now learned Barack and Michelle are the proud owners of yet another home, this one on the Left Coast.

As reported by PageSix and other sources, the Obamas have a new home in Rancho Mirage, California. Rancho Mirage is a popular golf getaway which would explain its attraction to the soon-to-be ex-golfer-in-chief. By some counts this makes the Obama's fifth home. Also from PageSix, The Obamas are also said to have bought a holiday getaway in Obama's childhood home state of Hawaii. How many American families own five of anything, let alone houses? Let alone houses in Hawaii that they see once a year or so. Most of us are blessed if able to rent a hotel room or condo on Hawaii once a decade.

The relocation habits of Democrats leaving office is very interesting.

For example; having been voted out of office in 2014, Louisiana Senator Mary Landrieu didn't return to Louisiana. she instead made her 7,300-square foot $2.5 million Washington DC mansion her new home. Rather than returning to Little Rock, when Bill and Hill left the White House they chose the liberal, ultra-wealthy haven of Chappaqua New York with its average household income of $285,801 and average household net worth of $1,564,366 for their new residence.

Now it's the Obama's turn. Are they going back to Chicago to live amongst the little people and take their chances becoming yet another statistic (total number shot as of this writing this year: 3,961)? No, not so much.

They, like the others, are moving into a private, secured community to live in a house big enough for five families where they will host cocktail parties for golf buddies and other millionaire and billionaire friends.

Yet like the Sanders, Landrieus and Clintons of the world, they will accept exorbitant five-, six-, even seven-figure speaking fees to give speeches about how the rich in our country are steadily pulling away from everyone else and increasingly isolating themselves. About how the concentration of wealth at the top is allowing some Americans to own multiple houses, vacation when and as they please and live lives most of the rest of the country cannot fathom. They'll blather on and on about how the rich are a big part of the problems in our country.

They will, in part, be right.

(Written by Derrick Wilburn)
Abrignac Offline
#2 Posted:
Joined: 02-24-2012
Posts: 17,217
Kinda like the white broad trying to get elected as DNC chair. Her platform is that she shuts down white people.

Rest my case.
Abrignac Offline
#3 Posted:
Joined: 02-24-2012
Posts: 17,217
Reminds me of a 75 year old widow I know very very well. She's left of Bernie Sanders and feels that blacks are oppressed by whites. Just today she made a point to tell me that she saw a realtor showing our old home to a black couple. I asked her if that was a problem. She looked at me like a deer caught in the headlights.

SMH
teedubbya Offline
#4 Posted:
Joined: 08-14-2003
Posts: 95,637
I guess that proves it
ZRX1200 Offline
#5 Posted:
Joined: 07-08-2007
Posts: 60,477
Poor media has to start doing a lot of work again instead of having conference calls with POTUS for marching orders and talking points.
frankj1 Offline
#6 Posted:
Joined: 02-08-2007
Posts: 44,211
shut down the media. problem solved. Open road to despotism.
Yay?
Buckwheat Offline
#7 Posted:
Joined: 04-15-2004
Posts: 12,251
Yeah because all of the ex-republican presidents lived in abject poverty after they retired. fog
delta1 Offline
#8 Posted:
Joined: 11-23-2011
Posts: 28,754
I'll be honest... for the sake of my bank accounts and pension holdings, I hope Trump does well...I took a financial bath at the end of the GWB years...so the GOP owes me...I'm entitled...
TMCTLT Offline
#9 Posted:
Joined: 11-22-2007
Posts: 19,733
Buckwheat wrote:
Yeah because all of the ex-republican presidents lived in abject poverty after they retired. fog



Yeah but they didn't make it a POINT during their administration to admonish others for doing exactly what Barry has done....he / they ARE 1%ers. He hates them or hadn't you heard? He's as big a hypocrite as they come.
teedubbya Offline
#10 Posted:
Joined: 08-14-2003
Posts: 95,637
Yet trump is a populist LMAO
burnem2 Offline
#11 Posted:
Joined: 12-23-2009
Posts: 628
Not bad for a guy who wasn't worth much financially prior to entering the Presidency. Must have made some really sound investments with his $400k salary.
TMCTLT Offline
#12 Posted:
Joined: 11-22-2007
Posts: 19,733
teedubbya wrote:
Yet trump is a populist LMAO



From the FREEREPUBLIC


GETTYSBURG – On Memorial Day 1963, Vice President Lyndon Johnson stood where Abraham Lincoln gave his immortal address here. In a calculated leap, Johnson gave a politically charged speech at an event meant to mark a solemn occasion.

It marked his transformation from a Texas conservative into a progressive populist.

Americans have long embraced populist movements emphasizing the disconnect between elites and Main Street. Sometimes these movements lead to the White House; more often, they do not.

The upside of populism is when it rails against government and achieves something better through real reform; the downside is when it pits one segment of society against another and fails to condemn the resulting violence.

And did Barry ever pit one segment against another..

President Barack Obama is going full-force populist to seek re-election, giving a wink and a nod to the nation’s “occupy” movements, attacking Wall Street (while taking its money in fundraisers), and deploying surrogates and local Democratic Party chairs to mimic the “occupier” language.

“I understand the frustrations that are being expressed in those protests," the president said in an interview with ABC News.


"The most important thing we can do right now,” he added, “is letting people know that … we are on their side."

Talking about Republican opponents such as Mitt Romney, he said on a jobs bus-tour that Republicans "want to gut regulations. They want to let Wall Street do whatever it wants."

In response, Romney told the Trib that Obama's populist rhetoric, pitting Americans against Americans, is a far cry from what the president ran on in 2008.

“There is no way that America can lead the world in jobs, innovation and rising incomes if we divide our nation,” Romney said.
teedubbya Offline
#13 Posted:
Joined: 08-14-2003
Posts: 95,637
Funny. I wasn't defending Barry. I wasn't saying I didn't know what a populist was and nothing you posted had anything to do what I was saying.


I agree on Obama. That's why it's so funny to see him thrown out whenever someone says anything about Trump. It's a big YEA, SO, Agreed.


Trump is who trump has always been. He hasn't changed. It funny to see the gyrations to paint him as being in touch with the people and looking out for the little guy.


Maybe you can find another cut and paste that better addresses what I am saying.
TMCTLT Offline
#14 Posted:
Joined: 11-22-2007
Posts: 19,733
teedubbya wrote:
Funny. I wasn't defending Barry. I wasn't saying I didn't know what a populist was and nothing you posted had anything to do what I was saying.


I agree on Obama. That's why it's so funny to see him thrown out whenever someone says anything about Trump. It's a big YEA, SO, Agreed.


Trump is who trump has always been. He hasn't changed. It funny to see the gyrations to paint him as being in touch with the people and looking out for the little guy.


Maybe you can find another cut and paste that better addresses what I am saying.




And maybe you could actually " say something " and try to stick to the topic of the thread rather than the usual and expected....deflection
ZRX1200 Offline
#15 Posted:
Joined: 07-08-2007
Posts: 60,477
Frank, the media is killing themselves.

I want a vigorous watchdog media, but we now have legalized propoganda, and salespeople.

Who watches the watchers.
teedubbya Offline
#16 Posted:
Joined: 08-14-2003
Posts: 95,637
deflection? LOL
teedubbya Offline
#17 Posted:
Joined: 08-14-2003
Posts: 95,637
ZRX1200 wrote:
Frank, the media is killing themselves.

I want a vigorous watchdog media, but we now have legalized propoganda, and salespeople.

Who watches the watchers.



We agree here for the most part. However I don't think Trump want's a vigorous watchdog media.
tonygraz Offline
#18 Posted:
Joined: 08-11-2008
Posts: 20,175
How come Jimmy Carter wasn't on the OP list of Democrats leaving the White House ?
ZRX1200 Offline
#19 Posted:
Joined: 07-08-2007
Posts: 60,477
I agree, but I don't think he wants one with a blind to the truth agenda either.
Burner02 Offline
#20 Posted:
Joined: 12-21-2010
Posts: 12,861
ZRX1200 wrote:
I agree, but I don't think he wants one with a blind to the truth agenda either.



Like we had for the past 8 years?
Gene363 Offline
#21 Posted:
Joined: 01-24-2003
Posts: 30,680
tonygraz wrote:
How come Jimmy Carter wasn't on the OP list of Democrats leaving the White House ?


OK not all democrats, but Obama is leaving with obscene wealth and the Clintons were, "dead broke" and all.
delta1 Offline
#22 Posted:
Joined: 11-23-2011
Posts: 28,754
Most of his increase in "net worth" have been due to book sale royalties. He has published three books that have sold a lot, as has Michelle. They also had stocks and bonds before, and acquired more during the past 8 years. Those have increased in value, as have the two daughter's college funds. Their home in Chicago has increased in value. He is a 1%.

Wonder if his effective tax rate is higher or lower than Romney's?

Don't think we'll ever know about Thumpher...
frankj1 Offline
#23 Posted:
Joined: 02-08-2007
Posts: 44,211
ZRX1200 wrote:
Frank, the media is killing themselves.

I want a vigorous watchdog media, but we now have legalized propoganda, and salespeople.

Who watches the watchers.
hopefully not the government.

I understand. I'm just staking out a position before it gets easy for a Prez to undermine the credibility of all media to the point that the population cheers as the newspaper offices etc. are burned to the ground...despite the book title I keep citing, It Can Happen Here.

Don't forget, the far right and far left media were born and evolved from the protected freedom of the original press.
Either wing could easily be silenced under any given regime, once the precedent is established allowing for it. And you choose to give more credence to one of those sides, others certainly feel your sources are totally biased as well. Would they say positives about anything Obama if deserved?

Jefferson spoke to the subject a long time ago.
Burner02 Offline
#24 Posted:
Joined: 12-21-2010
Posts: 12,861
delta1 wrote:
Most of his increase in "net worth" have been due to book sale royalties. He has published three books that have sold a lot, as has Michelle. They also had stocks and bonds before, and acquired more during the past 8 years. Those have increased in value, as have the two daughter's college funds. Their home in Chicago has increased in value. He is a 1%.

Wonder if his effective tax rate is higher or lower than Romney's?

Don't think we'll ever know about Thumpher...



Al, think this was really more about them being able to talk the talk and not walk the walk. Which seems to very common with many of those more left than moderate.





ZRX1200 Offline
#25 Posted:
Joined: 07-08-2007
Posts: 60,477
Frank......I will say it again.

Proaganda was made legal.
delta1 Offline
#26 Posted:
Joined: 11-23-2011
Posts: 28,754
Burner02 wrote:
Al, think this was really more about them being able to talk the talk and not walk the walk. Which seems to very common with many of those more left than moderate.







You're right, but blind spots to not walking the walk is an affliction we all have, prolly in equal amounts. We see it in people with whom we disagree, but not in those with whom we agree. Lots of GOP did not support Trump, (remember the Never Trumpers?) and many said he was unfit...now they are lined up with him.

His supporters demand that we give him time, contribute to his agenda...yet when it was they who were on the other side, many of them did all they could to vigorously fight Obama, swearing not to give an inch. It'd be a more civilized place if both sides lived up to what they ask the other side to do...
frankj1 Offline
#27 Posted:
Joined: 02-08-2007
Posts: 44,211
ZRX1200 wrote:
Frank......I will say it again.

Proaganda was made legal.

yet you still are able to read and hear all about it, from all sides.

I know what you are saying, but we all can get whatever info proves our points so easily.

BTW, bipartisan proposal.


tonygraz Offline
#28 Posted:
Joined: 08-11-2008
Posts: 20,175
If I was to get a salary of $ 400,000 a year for 8 years, with paid housing and transportation and a $ 50,000 expense account, I would also be a lot richer than when I started.
ZRX1200 Offline
#29 Posted:
Joined: 07-08-2007
Posts: 60,477
Frank I know that, one grew out of the others and I'm no fan of any. There's no lines now and they're granted special rights.
frankj1 Offline
#30 Posted:
Joined: 02-08-2007
Posts: 44,211
ZRX1200 wrote:
Frank I know that, one grew out of the others and I'm no fan of any. There's no lines now and they're granted special rights.

I know it doesn't sound like it, but I do not like allowing for a government to pipe opinion swaying info through private channels...it's just that I feel as long as the extremes of reporting are not shut down, I am not petrified yet.

That's why I rant about Trump's "style" of dealing with the media.
Abrignac Offline
#31 Posted:
Joined: 02-24-2012
Posts: 17,217
tonygraz wrote:
If I was to get a salary of $ 400,000 a year for 8 years, with paid housing and transportation and a $ 50,000 expense account, I would also be a lot richer than when I started.


1 and 1 and 1 is 3
Covfireman Offline
#32 Posted:
Joined: 09-03-2015
Posts: 809
frankj1 wrote:
I know it doesn't sound like it, but I do not like allowing for a government to pipe opinion swaying info through private channels...it's just that I feel as long as the extremes of reporting are not shut down, I am not petrified yet.

That's why I rant about Trump's "style" of dealing with the media.


Which ones are the extreme ? I ask because I don't know anymore . I've seen domestic things ignored by the media that amazed me * . I used to have a little faith in the US media but now it reminds me of the media in Panama right before we took out Noriega . It's disheartening to see it decline like it has .







* I'd explain it but the truth seems like propaganda.
Speyside Offline
#33 Posted:
Joined: 03-16-2015
Posts: 13,106
If news isn't sensational or outrageous it is seldom reported. Also the news must adhere to the agenda of the news agency. These things we know are true. But the government needs to not attempt to or censor the news in any way. This is what happens in dictatorships, totalitarian regimes, communist countries, and such. In a democracy all points of view must be heard, even if you detest many of them. Freedom is much more important than anyone's point of view.
Burner02 Offline
#34 Posted:
Joined: 12-21-2010
Posts: 12,861
Covfireman wrote:
It's disheartening to see it decline like it has .



Maybe the media should move to the middle, report the news and not promote their agenda.
Abrignac Offline
#35 Posted:
Joined: 02-24-2012
Posts: 17,217
Burner02 wrote:
Maybe the media should move to the middle, report the news and not promote their agenda.


News organizations reporting news??? Now that's a novel idea.
Covfireman Offline
#36 Posted:
Joined: 09-03-2015
Posts: 809
Speyside wrote:
If news isn't sensational or outrageous it is seldom reported. Also the news must adhere to the agenda of the news agency. These things we know are true. But the government needs to not attempt to or censor the news in any way. This is what happens in dictatorships, totalitarian regimes, communist countries, and such. In a democracy all points of view must be heard, even if you detest many of them. Freedom is much more important than anyone's point of view.



I agree but the networks get free use of the airwaves in their spectrum and are required to have so much news time and kids programing . With control of the media in so few hands we can't get the truth . Why compete when you can report on the most sensational thing of the day .
ZRX1200 Offline
#37 Posted:
Joined: 07-08-2007
Posts: 60,477
Frank I'm not in favor of "shutting down" anyone.

But when MAJOR NETWORKS are FABRICATING things they need to lose their broadcasting license, or at least face that threat. They are actively working for one party
Abrignac Offline
#38 Posted:
Joined: 02-24-2012
Posts: 17,217
ZRX1200 wrote:
Frank I'm not in favor of "shutting down" anyone.

But when MAJOR NETWORKS are FABRICATING things they need to lose their broadcasting license, or at least face that threat. They are actively working for one party


Wait for it.....

3


2


1


victor869 wrote:
blah blah blah, blah blah, blah blah blah, blah
ZRX1200 Offline
#39 Posted:
Joined: 07-08-2007
Posts: 60,477
I dunno man his text here always comes up blank for me.
Covfireman Offline
#40 Posted:
Joined: 09-03-2015
Posts: 809
ZRX1200 wrote:
Frank I'm not in favor of "shutting down" anyone.

But when MAJOR NETWORKS are FABRICATING things they need to lose their broadcasting license, or at least face that threat. They are actively working for one party


What if we used some existing laws and broke those media companies up . There used to be a law about owning tv stations ,radio stations , and news papers that kept all of them in one market from being owned by the same person or corporation.I think it was repealed in the late 90s . I may be mistaken about exactly when . I googled it it started with the Telecommunications Act of 1996 . Lol look at the date and which way most media swings .
Speyside Offline
#41 Posted:
Joined: 03-16-2015
Posts: 13,106
Z, I don't think there is an unbiased network small or large. I get your point, and agree with it, but from a practical viewpoint where would you start and where would you end? I read conservative news, and liberal news. Not so much to be well rounded, but more so to try to find the truth. The one constant I see is big brother is trying to think for me.
ZRX1200 Offline
#42 Posted:
Joined: 07-08-2007
Posts: 60,477
I have no expectations of complete unbiased news.
delta1 Offline
#43 Posted:
Joined: 11-23-2011
Posts: 28,754
and most people tend to seek out news sources that reflect their points of view. Much of the "news" that people consume are less journalism and more infotainment. Keep your fact-checker running...
frankj1 Offline
#44 Posted:
Joined: 02-08-2007
Posts: 44,211
ZRX1200 wrote:
I have no expectations of complete unbiased news.

you are among the few that read it all. Most look for supporting info that proves what they already believe, or want to be true, instead of using info to form their opinions.

Jamie, I know you understand why I love this place despite being in the minority. I continue to learn by trying to understand the arguments against my natural tendencies.
Abrignac Offline
#45 Posted:
Joined: 02-24-2012
Posts: 17,217
delta1 wrote:
and most people tend to seek out news sources that reflect their points of view. Much of the "news" that people consume are less journalism and more infotainment. Keep your fact-checker running...



Too bad it's a requirement that one fact checks the fact-checker. I prefer to go to the original source rather than rely on the talking heads.

Users browsing this topic
Guest