Official Democratic Party Thread

[Cudaflu]

Bush policies have killed this country, I dont care what you Republicans try to spin. He is the president, and he signs off on everything. The buck stops with Bush. He started a war, we never should have been in, and now look. Everything fell downhill from there. The cost of the war made alot of setbacks. We ran out of money, therefore we had to start borrowing to pay for the war and our oil. With Iraq not producing oil and terrorism running amuck, that sent oil prices through the roof, causing a chain reaction still felt today. Everything falls back on the war in Iraq.

Yes that is true, but is the war really his fault? Think back to when this war first started for a moment.

First off, Bush was told there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. He didn't just make that up himself, the old Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfiled, came with info telling him that. Now that we've discovered that there isn't, it seems stupid to have gone in, but we can't go back and change it, and to leave now would leave a nation in total chaos.

Also, the war can be linked to 9/11 . America never thought of terrorists before hand and after they hit the Twin Towers, it was a huge deal. I deffinatly felt a sense of wanting some revenge for what they have done, as I'm sure others did too. I know it's a terrible thing to say, and we should just turn the other cheek, but it's human nature to play "You hit me, I hit you back." I'm sure this had to do with the choice to go in to Iraq.

Finally, Bush isn't the only one who was for the war. As you may know, the goverment has a deep system of checks and balances to make sure no branch of goverment is too strong. Bush cannot force a bill into action, only veto one. I think over 70% of congress must be for a bill for it to be passed, so every member of congress that motioned to pass the bill should be given equal blame.

[piratesmvp04]

Alright, I first want to say that some of you probably already know my political views, but I want you to forget them here. I'm acting as a moderate now to get information from you guys about Obama. I've always said that if a liberal can give me a logical reason for why they support their candidate, I'll respect that. So, here's your chance!

1. Obama's campaign has been defined mostly on Change for America. However, I still am not sure exactly what this change is. Can someone please define in clear detail what change is. In other words, I don't want an answer like, "He'll end use of oil in cars." I want to hear how he'll do that and what his approach is to making that transition.

2. The McCain campaign has been heavily criticizing Obama for his lack of experience and by saying he is not "ready to lead." However, many liberals believe otherwise. What has Obama done in his past and during his political career that qualifies him to lead the country?

3. Obama believes that we must end the war in Iraq. The conservatives argue that this would leave Iraq in great turmoil which would lead to the fall of the young Iraqi government and the return to power of terrorists. Why is it a good move to leave Iraq given these potential possibilities that the conservatives are speaking about?

I appreciate all responses!

[fred13]

Also, the war can be linked to 9/11 . America never thought of terrorists before hand and after they hit the Twin Towers, it was a huge deal. I deffinatly felt a sense of wanting some revenge for what they have done, as I'm sure others did too. I know it's a terrible thing to say, and we should just turn the other cheek, but it's human nature to play "You hit me, I hit you back." I'm sure this had to do with the choice to go in to Iraq.

Whether its a terrible thing to say or not, Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. It was orchestrated by Osama Bin Laden and Al Queida, a terrorist organization based in Afghanistan. The United States originally did follow the "You hit me, I hit you back" philosophy, as they bombed the **** out of Afghanistan for a few weeks (months? not sure). But as soon as the "Weapons of Mass Destruction" AKA Oil was reported, they abandoned ship and began what was the worst political decision the Unites States has ever made.

[fred13]

1. Obama's campaign has been defined mostly on Change for America. However, I still am not sure exactly what this change is. Can someone please define in clear detail what change is. In other words, I don't want an answer like, "He'll end use of oil in cars." I want to hear how he'll do that and what his approach is to making that transition.

By ending the war in Iraq, Obama plans to use the billions of dollars that will no longer be flushed down the toilet and instead fund biofuel research within the United States. He is also not entirely abandoning oil. He just plans to stop getting oil from the middle east by 2010.

3. Obama believes that we must end the war in Iraq. The conservatives argue that this would leave Iraq in great turmoil which would lead to the fall of the young Iraqi government and the return to power of terrorists. Why is it a good move to leave Iraq given these potential possibilities that the conservatives are speaking about?

I'm not really sure what your argument is here. Just because the conservatives say something, doesn't make it true. Iraq was never run by terrorists in the first place. It was run by a dictator. Once that guy is gone, and a democratic system is built, that's it, that's the end of the job. It worked in South Korea. Why wouldn't it work in Iraq?

[Sean O]

1. Obama's campaign has been defined mostly on Change for America. However, I still am not sure exactly what this change is. Can someone please define in clear detail what change is. In other words, I don't want an answer like, "He'll end use of oil in cars." I want to hear how he'll do that and what his approach is to making that transition.

Well, fred nailed the basics of the oil argument. But generally:

1). End the conservative-led shift towards deregulation that has ruined our environment and economy. This also involves closing the loopholes that people like McCain exploit at the expense of workers.

2). Limit and reverse the illegal expansion of rights of the executive branch under the Bush administration.

3). Re-integrate the US into the world, which Bush has attempted to destroy.

4). Read the "Blueprint for America" at barackobama.com.

2. The McCain campaign has been heavily criticizing Obama for his lack of experience and by saying he is not "ready to lead." However, many liberals believe otherwise. What has Obama done in his past and during his political career that qualifies him to lead the country?

1). His early post-college experience, where he was an organizer for the poor on the south side of chicago.

2). He's a constitutional scholar and lawyer, so he actually understands the constitution, unlike our current president.

3). Led the way on anti-police brutality legislation in Illinois.

4). He has sponsored 131 bills in his time in the US senate, and co-sponsored 619, pretty good for a junior senator.

5). He led the way on the following:

The Secure America and Orderly Immigration Act (which led to the immigration reform of 2006)

The Lugar-Obama Cooperative Threat Reduction (protecting against WMD proliferation, bipartisan)

Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006

Democratic Republic of the Congo Relief, Security, and Democracy Promotion Act

Honest Leadership and Open Government Act

Deceptive Practices and Voter Intimidation Prevention Act

The Obama-McCain Climate Change Reduction Bill (back when McCain was bipartisan)

Iraq War De-Escalation Act of 2007 (Anti surge, which we now know was a massive failure)

Amendments to the 2008 Defense Authorization Bill

The Comprehensive Nuclear Threat Reduction provision (more nuclear non-proliferation)

3. Obama believes that we must end the war in Iraq. The conservatives argue that this would leave Iraq in great turmoil which would lead to the fall of the young Iraqi government and the return to power of terrorists. Why is it a good move to leave Iraq given these potential possibilities that the conservatives are speaking about?

1). Well, the most obvious: Iraq and the Iraqi PM (who was hand-picked by the Bush administration) want us out.

2). We're refereeing a civil war. The only reason the laughably named "surge" (aka escalation) can be seen as a success is because violence decreased at the exact moment we started paying both sides. When you're paying people not to attack us, they don't attack.

3). Iraq needs to take control of themselves. We've wasted enough time there.

4). Like it or not, we're in desperate trouble here, and my tax dollars should go to fixing domestic problems.

5). Iraq has nothing to do with the war on terror, or Al Qa'eda. If we actually want to take down Al Qa'eda, we refocus on Pakistan and Afghanistan.

6). By actually listening and working with Europe and other nations, we put different (economic, weapons, etc) pressure on Iran and the neighboring nations, rather than spending hundreds of billions more.

[meteamo]

Good posts Fred & Sean.

And I'm not sure if anyone has recently mentioned that some of the terrorists that were responsible for 9/11 came from Saudi Arabia. I'm not sure if we should have gone into [saudi Arabia] but there was no way we would have with them being one of the countries that provide us oil. Originally, the reason I thought we went into Iraq is the Oedipus Complex since he wanted to be better than his dad and do something that his dad could not. But the oil thing sounds good too.

Theory: He's smarter than people think. He's filthy rich and people like us are not. He can survive if oil goes through the roof like how it is now. One sure fire way to get oil to increase in price is to cause a war and chaos and uncertainty in the mid-east. It sounds like that plan is working so far. It's the survival of the fittest and only the rich will survive.

BTW ... does anyone think the potential threats of Russia and China will be one of the issues in the upcoming election? I think people are paying more attention to Iran and North Korea and people should be looking at what China and Russia have been doing. It's kind of like Putin is trying to get the old USSR back before Yeltsin came. It would be ironic that if the USSR fell under one Republican and started back up under another. But, that's just my wild thinking.

[piratesmvp04]

I first want to say that you guys have some very good arguments, and I'm a little impressed. 99% of liberals I've talked to have no clue what change Obama wants, so it's good to see that not all liberals are voting mindlessly. However, I do have a few more questions about the reason fred13 gave:

He just plans to stop getting oil from the middle east by 2010.

How will he stop getting oil from the middle east? He can't just say to stop it, the gas prices would rise too high. And if you go by the liberal argument against drilling in ANWR, we won't have oil from there for 10 years, which is after Obama's 2010 deadline for foreign oil import.

I'm not really sure what your argument is here. Just because the conservatives say something, doesn't make it true. Iraq was never run by terrorists in the first place. It was run by a dictator. Once that guy is gone, and a democratic system is built, that's it, that's the end of the job. It worked in South Korea. Why wouldn't it work in Iraq?

You are correct that Iraq was not run by terrorists. But the conservatives believe that the insurgents will attempt to seize control of the government from the Iraqis. Without US support, it is feared that the young Iraqi government may fall. Basically, the concern is that the Iraqi government is not strong enough yet to defend itself.

[Sean O]

not by 2010, I believe hopey plans on stopping middle eastern oil by 2019. This will be accomplished by putting 150 billion dollars into alternative energies, along with tax breaks to green companies who stay in the US.

This, as a side note, is the amount we spend in Iraq every few months, mopping up the war fought over WMD that never existed. If gore had been elected (oh right, he was), we would have nearly eliminated our dependence on foreign oil.

[piratesmvp04]

Thank you for the detailed explanation of HOW Obama will end oil use. That's the kind of thing I've been looking for from a liberal for so long. I should also let you know that McCain supports much of that plan. He does support ending foreign use by drilling in the US, and he supports a long-term solution of researching alternative fuel use. I think if Dems and Reps sat down and discussed this, which they have done by the way with the exception of Pelosi, they would definitely find common ground on this issue.

Now, about Iraq. I heard reports, that the news didn't cover very much, taht huge stores of uranium were found hidden underground in Baghdad a few years ago. Doesn't that hint that Hussein just might have had future intentions of nuclear use? After all, who would have thought that Iran would be a threat back then?

[Sean O]

the only rumors of uranium was a single mention by an Iraqi conman named curveball, that Saddam was trying to purchase yellowcake from Africa. This was discredited by the US government, but Bush used it anyway. This had two interesting notes. One, it caused Colin Powell to famously slam the briefing down and exclaim "this is bull****" because he was the one who had to try to convince the world. Second, the yellowcake saga resulted in Cheney leaking the identity of Valerie Plame, a CIA agent, when her husband Joe found the story had no basis in reality. This, of course, is a traitorous action that the Democratic losers were too wussy to investigate.

There were never credible reports of WMD post-Kuwait. The only WMD Iraq had were given tobthem by Bush senior, and were probably exhausted in the slaughter of Kurds during the Iran war.

[piratesmvp04]

Okay, but even if they didn't have wmd, do you agree that they very possibly could have been the Iran today?

[tywiggins]

the only rumors of uranium was a single mention by an Iraqi conman named curveball, that Saddam was trying to purchase yellowcake from Africa. This was discredited by the US government, but Bush used it anyway. This had two interesting notes. One, it caused Colin Powell to famously slam the briefing down and exclaim "this is bull****" because he was the one who had to try to convince the world. Second, the yellowcake saga resulted in Cheney leaking the identity of Valerie Plame, a CIA agent, when her husband Joe found the story had no basis in reality. This, of course, is a traitorous action that the Democratic losers were too wussy to investigate.

There were never credible reports of WMD post-Kuwait. The only WMD Iraq had were given tobthem by Bush senior, and were probably exhausted in the slaughter of Kurds during the Iran war.

There was a shipment of old "yellowcake" uranium from Iraq to Canada. (from Iraq's reactor that got bombed by Israel in 1981.

http://www.philly.com/inquirer/world_us/20..._to_Canada.html

Israeli warplanes bombed a reactor project at the site in 1981. Later, U.N. inspectors documented and safeguarded the yellowcake, which had been stored in aging drums and containers since before the 1991 Gulf War. There was no evidence of any yellowcake dating from after 1991, the official said.

[Sean O]

Okay, but even if they didn't have wmd, do you agree that they very possibly could have been the Iran today?

I guess I don't understand why Hussein would've suddenly acquired WMD post-2003 when he hadn't done anything since Kuwait a decade prior. I wouldn't be surprised if they attempted to acquire uranium for a nuclear power plant, but the capacity for nuclear weapons seems beyond what they'd like and what they'd be able to handle.

Saddam was small time in a number of different ways. As a crazy dictator, he couldn't hold a candle to Pol Pot or Hitler or Stalin. He was an egomaniac who had his bluff called on Kuwait and was smacked down for it. There is no reason he would've suddenly attempted an invasion of Israel or anything but stupid Katyusha launches. He certainly had no chance at a direct attack on the US.

As ty posted, there's nothing that makes it appear they had WMD in any capacity post-Kuwait.

[piratesmvp04]

Okay, thank you everyone for your answers. It's been good hearing your answers to my tough questions. It's good to see that there are actually liberals out there who can support with logic their beliefs and not ride the Change bandwagon without thinking. Though I still fiercely disagree with the liberal policies regarding Iraq, universal health care, pro-choice vs. pro-life, and tax policy/government spending, I still respect each one of you who made your arguments, and I respect your opinions because you based them on logic, which ALL arguments should be based on. You've caused me to have a little more respect for Obama supporters now.

Thanks again!

[DeuceBlades]

Way to go guys!!!

one last thing about the wmd:

Sadaam did have them, but not in the quantities that the CIA thought him to have. He used most of it on his own people (the Kurds) who rebelled against him. They have found that mass grave, and proved it was wmd.

On to the second point, if he had any, and thats if he had: They most likely would be in Syria. He wouldnt keep them in his country knowing he was about to get invaded. Syria wont acknowledge that, and we dont have proof of it, but nobody has went in to check.

By the way, I think the last 8 years is proof enough that we are headed in the *cough cough* wrong direction.

[piratesmvp04]

By the way, I think the last 8 years is proof enough that we are headed in the *cough cough* wrong direction.

How is it proof we are headed in the wrong direction?

[Sean O]

How is it proof we are headed in the wrong direction?

For a change, why don't you tell us why we're heading in the right direction? We're in massive debt, we're in two losing wars, our economy has gone to hell, thousands are losing their homes, we've done nothing to secure the borders, the entire world hates us, we're no closer to alternative fuels than we were 8 years ago, etc etc.

[piratesmvp04]

Alright, I'll break down what you said:

First of all, I only said we're heading in the right direction with Iraq. I never said we're in the right direction with other things.

1. We are in massive debt because of wasteful spending in Washington. This is partly because the tax system is bad. The only way to fix that is to implement the FairTax, which John McCain does not support, unfortunately. But that's another point.

2. Anyone who says we're losing the Iraq war has not been watching the news. Last year, President Bush started a troop surge in Iraq. Since then, the troop death rate has been down, the violence has dropped, we've captured a number of terrorist leaders, and Al-Quaeda has been forced to move into Afghanistan because Iraq is their lost cause. Further, General Petraus says that we are winning. Unless you have personally been to Iraq and examined the situation first-hand, you have to take his word for it. So, I don't know what you're talking about losing the Iraq war.

3. America is a nation with a vibrant economy. And vibrant economies like ours have ups and downs. When President Bush took office, he inherited a decent economy from President Clinton that was just about to take a downturn. After the economy slumped for a while and unemployment rates rose, the economy picked itself up and in 2004, 2005, and 2006, we had one of the best economies in US history. Don't forget that gas was $2.09/gallon in 2006. But now, we're headed down hill, and it's partly because of oil shortage. Everything in this country is tied to oil. The factories that produce the things we use, the electricity we use, and the trucks, boats, cars, and planes we use for transportation all use oil. Every single thing you see has a drop of oil in it. Because we are short on oil and the demand is still just as high, our prices have gone up (supply/demand). And since everything depends on that oil price, everything else goes up too. We need to drill our own oil and increase the supply so that the price will go down.

4. People are losing their homes for the same reason the economy is going down. The only way we will fix this is by increasing oil supply by drilling. When there is more oil, the cost of production in factories will drop, the cost of transporting the products to the stores will drop, and the cost of selling the item will drop, resulting in cheaper prices for everything. Further, if we implement the FairTax, we will eliminate production taxes and corporate taxes on companies, thus making it cheaper to produce items, and making items cost less in the store.

5. We are no closer to alternative fuels than we were 8 years ago because 8 years ago, there was no need to get alternative fuels. When gas was $1.20/gallon, why would we need another source of fuel? It's only over the past 5 years where we've realized that oil is becoming less in supply. Now, it is the time to start researching these new sources of fuel, and both Obama and John McCain support this.

[BigRog]

You say that we haven't been watching the news and because of that don't know we are winning the war, have you ever thought of the government forcing propaganda and censorship. I watch the Portuguese news with my grandma and there is no censorship on it. According to them we are not winning nor losing it is just stalemating over there. According to my friends who live in Europe they say the news says the same thing about us not winning the war. I guess if we can get Mark in here we can get his opinion on what they say over in Scotland about our war.

As for the fuel alternatives, we were looking at it 8 years ago. You got to think, Gore was the VP at the time and we all know how much of an activist he is (Check his documentary if you get a chance. It is a rather educational film to watch) and fuel alternatives were being looked at because of the O-Zone being shredded and Fossil Fuels projected to run out by the time of our children's children.

[piratesmvp04]

You say that we haven't been watching the news and because of that don't know we are winning the war, have you ever thought of the government forcing propaganda and censorship. I watch the Portuguese news with my grandma and there is no censorship on it. According to them we are not winning nor losing it is just stalemating over there. According to my friends who live in Europe they say the news says the same thing about us not winning the war. I guess if we can get Mark in here we can get his opinion on what they say over in Scotland about our war.

As for the fuel alternatives, we were looking at it 8 years ago. You got to think, Gore was the VP at the time and we all know how much of an activist he is (Check his documentary if you get a chance. It is a rather educational film to watch) and fuel alternatives were being looked at because of the O-Zone being shredded and Fossil Fuels projected to run out by the time of our children's children.

What makes you think that the Portuguese news is any better than the US? If you assume that the rest of the world doesn't like us, then wouldn't their news be biased towards anything good that's American? In my opinion, it's hard to trust any news these days. But until I see it for myself, I've got to go with what I hear.

As for Gore's documentary, Inconvenient Truth, that was a requirement for my Biology class (I'm a biology major), so I know about it. I also do not support global warming, though that's another argument.

[BigRog]

IMO, European news isn't biased it just lacks the governments control over it. For example they show images of dead bodies from the war while American news "protects" us from those images.

I would much rather trust news from there instead of from here because they aren't being told what they can and can not say/show on tv.

[Sean O]

1. We are in massive debt because of wasteful spending in Washington. This is partly because the tax system is bad. The only way to fix that is to implement the FairTax, which John McCain does not support, unfortunately. But that's another point.

Well, under the Clinton administration, he worked with the Republican Congress to pass a balanced budget. Because of massive corruption with the Bush administration, the deficit has grown by 3.1 trillion dollars in 6 years.

If the Republican congress hadn't removed PAYGO in 2002, we would've been in better shape, but they instead decided to massively increase pork.

2. Anyone who says we're losing the Iraq war has not been watching the news. Last year, President Bush started a troop surge in Iraq. Since then, the troop death rate has been down, the violence has dropped, we've captured a number of terrorist leaders, and Al-Quaeda has been forced to move into Afghanistan because Iraq is their lost cause.

1). the violence decreased because we started paying both sides not to fight.

2). Troop fatalities increased for the first few months, until the money solution took hold.

3). The Sunni Awakening is all PR.

4). The point of the surge, as stated by McCain and Bush, was to allow for Sunni and Shia to come to a political agreement. Instead, elections in October are still in the air because radical, Anti-American elements are likely to take spots. This includes those loyal to Muqtada Al-Sad'r.

5). If we were winning, why did Nouri Al-Maliki have to beg Al Sad'r for the continuation of the cease-fire a few months ago?

6). While Americans were dying, why did the Iraqi government go on a 3 month long summer recess instead of hammering out a bipartisan solution?

Further, General Petraus says that we are winning.

You're serious dude? Bush said Iraq had WMDs, I guess they had WMDs.

Unless you have personally been to Iraq and examined the situation first-hand, you have to take his word for it. So, I don't know what you're talking about losing the Iraq war.

Basic logic? The fact that the goals of the surge weren't accomplished? The fact that the surge cost us hundreds of billions of dollars for no result, not so great.

After the economy slumped for a while and unemployment rates rose, the economy picked itself up and in 2004, 2005, and 2006, we had one of the best economies in US history. Don't forget that gas was $2.09/gallon in 2006.

And then the deregulation and speculation began. Because the Bush administration did nothing to protect the refineries in the Gulf, gas rose $1.25 a gallon during Katrina and speculation took over.

But now, we're headed down hill, and it's partly because of oil shortage. Everything in this country is tied to oil.

While the Bush administration has done nothing to find alternate fuel sources.

And since everything depends on that oil price, everything else goes up too. We need to drill our own oil and increase the supply so that the price will go down.

That's insane. If I repeatedly slam my head into a wall, putting a bandage on won't solve the problem, I need to stop slamming my head.

4. People are losing their homes for the same reason the economy is going down. The only way we will fix this is by increasing oil supply by drilling.

HAHAHAHAHA. This is literally the most ludicrous thing I've heard in months. People are losing their homes because of Republican deregulation, including the man behind McCain's economic policy. It used to be that banks couldn't loan money to any sub-prime people, but in order to extract more money, they were allowed to offer ARMs to those who never would've been able to afford it in the first place.

Then, because they're corporations, they doubled the rate without any warning (or oversight), forcing people out of their homes. This has NOTHING to do with oil.

Further, if we implement the FairTax, we will eliminate production taxes and corporate taxes on companies, thus making it cheaper to produce items, and making items cost less in the store.

You want to eliminate taxes on corporations! holy god, are you serious? Exxon has billion dollar profits and gets billions in tax breaks, that is insane.

5. We are no closer to alternative fuels than we were 8 years ago because 8 years ago, there was no need to get alternative fuels.

You mean when scientists were saying that global warming was accelerating and we were facing a massive fuel shortage in the future? What about the 70s with the gas shortages then because of Middle Eastern interference.

When gas was $1.20/gallon, why would we need another source of fuel? It's only over the past 5 years where we've realized that oil is becoming less in supply. Now, it is the time to start researching these new sources of fuel, and both Obama and John McCain support this.

For decades we've known we needed alternate sources, because it's not like all of a sudden we've found there'll be a shortage. Carter had solar panels on the White House that Reagan took down. There have been competitions for alternate sources for decades, that the government has ignored.

I'm sorry dude, there are opinions, and there are facts, and you are incorrect on a number of facts.

[meteamo]

Nice posts BigRog and Sean. Fully Agreed.

As I stated in a previous post*, if you get your news from one source, you will likely believe what they say instead of getting the bigger picture. At the time, I was talking about if you only watch FoxNews or MSNBC instead or read only 1 newspaper with an allegedly slanted political viewpoint such as the NY Post or NY Times. But, I guess that can be applied to news in general from a respective country or region.

In the US, a good show to watch is the BBC News which I think comes on PBS about 6 PM or at least it used to do so. And if most other countries basically say the same thing regarding this war and you hear differently from at least one station in this country, does that mean that everyone else is ganging up against this country and lieing? That sounds ridiculous IMO. I'm sure every person who lived in Iraq under Sadam who watched TV had one particular view of everyone else because that's the way the government wanted it. Then you got some countries that are far worse. This country isn't as bad as some others I can think of, but what's wrong with some diversity? This country is built upon it. We can't have such a narrow view of things that are happening around us, otherwise we may miss what really is happening. You have to take as much in as you possibly can and make your own decisions not based upon what you are told but what you can think for yourself. And when you listen to MSNBC, FoxNews, NY Post, NY Times, Washington Post, etc, you always have to think what Bias they have and what their viewpoints are and how they may make the news they report slanted [or even if they have a bias]. Most news media shouldn't have a bias as they should just report the news, but we all know that isn't the truth for some of the media.

We got minds dammit and we should use them. :loco:

PS >> How is the media in Russia? Is it open or is it controlled by the government?

* Previous post in this or other thread - don't remember which since it's all politics to me.

[Sean O]

It's ironic that she's pro-life, because this speech is an abortion.

edit: Some ways to counter this psychotic person's ramblings, donate today:

https://political.moveon.org/obamatshirts/i...fd1OBb3eQ%2FTcw

https://donate.barackobama.com/page/contrib...?source=mainnav

[Kayxero]

Huh. I did not get the first line.