every misstep is magnified and blown out of proportion and every "scandal" is severely hyped and every failure to accomplish something legislatively is laid at his feet while extraordinary GOP congressional obstructionism (which hasn't really been anything new since 2009 but impossible to overcome since 2011) is constantly minimized. However, the "problems" that are plaguing President Obama don't seem so catastrophic and/or damaging as some of the really serious problems that plagued George W. Bush during his "second" term- never ending occupation of Iraq that was sending our military men and women to their deaths every day, botched response to Hurricane Katrina that also caused a loss of human life, and a financial meltdown that claimed the livelihoods of a significant amount of people- among other things. If the worst thing that anybody can say about Obama's Presidency is that the rollout of his signature legislative achievement (ACA) was shaky/problematic, then I would not be too worried. After all, a glitchy website might temporarily inconvenience some people but it isn't going to kill them.

One of the big problems IMHO is not that there aren't more jobs out there but that the jobs that ARE available tend to be low-paying "McJobs", which, although better than nothing, still make it hard for people to pay their bills, particularly if they had a higher-paying job before and more financial responsibilities (people don't always plan to lose their jobs). The Republican push to curb UI wouldn't be quite so bad if they weren't also working against people on the other end by continuously pushing cuts to the safety net that low-income working people rely on to help cover their living expenses (i.e. Food Stamps, Medicaid, Childcare Assistance), not to mention pushing against attempts to increase the minimum wage and/or refusing to support a "living wage". The way things are going right now, Republicans seem to basically be "boxing" people in into "bad" or "worse" situations. If they don't want people to "rely" on UI (to the extent people actually) do, then they need to help create a climate where either there are more job opportunities for people and businesses have to pay better wages or benefits or help working people in other ways that allow them to survive (that's asking for a miracle, I know).

without it being a negative statement on that individual's gender/sexuality, right? Some men might find it appealing, attractive and some might not. It could be an issue if the man wants children at some point (of course, they could adopt though). I think that the main thing is whether or not the transgender woman is upfront about her status when they start dating and how the man feels about it and whether or not they want to be in that kind of relationship. I don't see a decision not to be engaged in a relationship with a transgender woman as transphobic though rejection can be hurtful to anybody, of course.

they hung on every pronouncement by McCain, Graham, and to a lesser extent, Ayotte and helpfully transmitted any and every smear the Republicans could come up with against Hillary, Obama, and Rice.

"Republicans have gone from demanding that people be allowed to keep the plans they like to demanding that people lose plans they just got."

Didn't the Republicans basically paint themselves into a corner by raising such a hue and cry over the whole "If you like your plan, you can keep it" and proposing legislative changes to fix that (which basically died as soon as President Obama fixed it administratively)? Now, when people's newly acquired plans go into effect, the Republicans will be saying, "If you like your plan, we'll take it away from you"?

but there are still lots of people using it and it's the best and most cost-effective way for me to ship things that I sell online.

do the networks and other media continue to give her a platform? What makes her so special/interesting/newsworthy that media networks hang on her every idiotic/prejudiced/bigoted pronouncement? I am disgusted by the lowest common denominator scraping the bottom of the bucket the MSM is constantly engaged in. Instead of hearing from intelligent, thoughtful people like Elizabeth Warren, Barack Obama, et. al (whom the media seem more interested in trying to destroy), we have to hear about Sarah Palin's every excited utterance and her defense of bigots like Robertson?

To them, it means that they are no longer the only people whom matter in this country and what they are really trying to do with all of this absurd "War on Christmas" is try to (re-)establish the means by which they can claim moral superiority and advance their own theocratic agenda. There are undoubtedly some atheists out there whom are not very nice to people of faith (and some "Christians" whom are not nice to everybody else as well) and there are attempts by business and government- sometimes slightly overreaching- to make the holiday season more inclusive for everybody but Christians aren't being forced to wear badges identifying their faith, they're not being jailed for proclaiming their faith publicly or privately, they're not being forced to renounce their religious beliefs/affiliations, and they're certainly not being rounded up and being sent to FEMA camps. Failing to recognize that Christianity is superior to other religions and/or enshrining them as the official religion of this country OTOH is NOT persecution.

it's so obvious to us. Manchin is oblivious to it- or doesn't want to acknowledge it because he's afraid of losing his seat if he strays too far from the anti-Obama mood in his state. Likewise, most of the MSM and punditocracy is worried about looking "liberal", so they stick with the right-wing narrative as well and just blame everything on President Obama. Thankfully, he handles it well but he is a better man than I. I would've been sick of the Republican/MSM practically from day one.