Obama nostalgia thread

[SOUL PWR]

I'll try to clarify...

I'd say anything he has done that was done through the executive powers of his office, or through his subordinates that are a part of his administration (which he signs off on) or any legislative action by congress that he has taken point on and signed into law - such as Obamacare. Obamacare is clearly an Obama accomplishment, though whether or not you think it's a good thing will depend on what side of the fence you're on.

So we got Obamacare as something he did - on an objective level, jury is out as to how wonderful it is. There are pros and cons.

You can maybe say, particularly now, he's trying to do some focusing on the environment...but objectively, we can probably say that's not going to really accomplish much, right? Lots of nice pretty words on paper, half-assed pledges mainly targeting the wrong countries, I presume? (I don't know a lot about it, but this is my guess)

What else?

What about things he's significantly contributed to utterly fucking up?

How about losing Iraq? Drastically deteriorating situation in Afghanistan? Worst race relations in the nation since the 60's, of which he, Michelle Obama, and their acolytes have contributed to with their rhetoric and given only lip service to any attempt to assuage? What about illegal immigration - because even if you think everyone and their dog should be allowed to come into the country, it still is a huge national security risk, with both terrorism and crime. What about now being $18.7 trillion in debt?

You seem to want to look at his presidency through rose-colored glasses. One of the best in the nation's history? My personal opinion is that he's one of the worst, if not the worst. That opinion is partially informed by my own political views - but not entirely. Objectively, he's been asleep at the switch a lot. Even Hillary Clinton has said as much, privately.

[redbreegull]

I could respond to all of that, but really it just kind of proves what I suspected, which is that your are not trying to have a conversation about "legacy" but rather one comparing him to some kind of fantasy "objective" vision of what a president should be like.

[redbreegull]

I mean one of the worst? A good student of history you are not.

[SOUL PWR]

Originally Posted by redbreegull

I could respond to all of that, but really it just kind of proves what I suspected, which is that your are not trying to have a conversation about "legacy" but rather one comparing him to some kind of fantasy "objective" vision of what a president should be like.

I must confess, I am very confused by this.

[SOUL PWR]

Originally Posted by redbreegull

I mean one of the worst? A good student of history you are not.

How so?

[SOUL PWR]

I mean, I'm not a historian but history has always been of great interest to me and I read up on it at my leisure. I know for a fact that I know considerably more about history than the average American - which is a low bar - but it is what it is. So I'm really interested to hear why you think I'm a poor history student. And if there's something you know that I don't, that doesn't make me a poor student...and vice versa, for that matter. People focus on different aspects of history that interest them. But we could have a good convo about it.

[redbreegull]

the majority of US presidents have been beyond terrible leaders who either did amazingly destructive things or earned positive legacies by being hands off enough to not fuck up anything too big (Clinton). Saying Obama is one of the worst presidents is totally historically blind to what most presidents have been like. He has overseen an era of economic upturn and stability, especially for the rich, which is what "fiscal conservatives" are into anyway. He's made important environmental commitments no previous president was interested in even looking at. He's been serious about arms reduction. He got the Iran deal done. He has quite a number of accomplishments to hang on his belt considering he faced one of the most obstructionist Congresses in US history. It's really really hard for me to take seriously anyone who says he's one of the worst because even if you really disagree with his policies, he has not been a destructive president and I can't see that frame as being anything but pure anti-liberal bias and ideological intransigence. Take the ACA for example. Plenty of people viscerally hate this law because it is ideologically opposed to what they believe is "American" (nevermind the fact the law is actually the brainchild of Reagan and the Heritage Foundation). But there are quantifiable things we can measure about the ACA. It will save a staggering amount of money going forward. It will (and has) saved a lot of lives. It's gotten people insured. It's stopped some seriously evil practices by insurance companies. It's saving the healthcare industry money long term.

No one who talks about Obama running America into the ground or anything like that can back of their opinions with anything but vague platitudes about socialism and how America "used to be great" back in the good old days of white supremacy. Obama didn't get us into any ground wars. His policies didn't shit on the economy. He didn't kill hundreds of thousands of foreigners. He didn't annex territory from other states.These things alone put him ahead of half of US presidents. I have a lot of problems with Obama, but comparing POTUSes to some platonic ideal of what a POTUS should be just results in the obvious realization that they have all been piss poor in certain ways, with a lot being downright evil in their racism, nationalism, and perpetuation of violence and war as a tool for political ends. Compared to most US presidents, Barack has been pretty ok. I'm not holding my breath to see another president as good in the near future.

[SOUL PWR]

Originally Posted by redbreegull

the majority of US presidents have been beyond terrible leaders who either did amazingly destructive things or earned positive legacies by being hands off enough to not fuck up anything too big (Clinton). Saying Obama is one of the worst presidents is totally historically blind to what most presidents have been like. He has overseen an era of economic upturn and stability, especially for the rich, which is what "fiscal conservatives" are into anyway. He's made important environmental commitments no previous president was interested in even looking at. He's been serious about arms reduction. He got the Iran deal done. He has quite a number of accomplishments to hang on his belt considering he faced one of the most obstructionist Congresses in US history. It's really really hard for me to take seriously anyone who says he's one of the worst because even if you really disagree with his policies, he has not been a destructive president and I can't see that frame as being anything but pure anti-liberal bias and ideological intransigence. Take the ACA for example. Plenty of people viscerally hate this law because it is ideologically opposed to what they believe is "American" (nevermind the fact the law is actually the brainchild of Reagan and the Heritage Foundation). But there are quantifiable things we can measure about the ACA. It will save a staggering amount of money going forward. It will (and has) saved a lot of lives. It's gotten people insured. It's stopped some seriously evil practices by insurance companies. It's saving the healthcare industry money long term.

No one who talks about Obama running America into the ground or anything like that can back of their opinions with anything but vague platitudes about socialism and how America "used to be great" back in the good old days of white supremacy. Obama didn't get us into any ground wars. His policies didn't shit on the economy. He didn't kill hundreds of thousands of foreigners. He didn't annex territory from other states.These things alone put him ahead of half of US presidents. I have a lot of problems with Obama, but comparing POTUSes to some platonic ideal of what a POTUS should be just results in the obvious realization that they have all been piss poor in certain ways, with a lot being downright evil in their racism, nationalism, and perpetuation of violence and war as a tool for political ends. Compared to most US presidents, Barack has been pretty ok. I'm not holding my breath to see another president as good in the near future.

I think good or bad most often depends on your perspective of what good or bad is...saying the majority did terribly destructive things, destructive for who? Bad in what way? As for Clinton, yeah he presided over a period of economic growth but it's likely that economic harvest was in part due to the seeds planted by his predecessors, not so much entirely his own policies.

As for Obama - his unemployment numbers have been pretty bad throughout most of his presidency, and they have also been manipulated by the people who publish the statistics, because they've manipulated the way they count the work force. The unemployment has been the worst since Carter, easily. And Carter also sucked. It's fair game to blame Bush for some of this, but Obama has had 8 years to do something about it and for what little he's done, he's also made it worse in other ways, particularly for blacks. I agree there has been "stability" but it's been stability of crappy economic times. I also agree with the Democrat talking point that the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer - but they seem to not be doing anything about it. And it's false that Republican voters are "into" that. As for his environmental committments, a lot of Republican presidents did make committments but they get ignored for them simply because they're Republicans. Bush Jr. had a great record on clean air, for example. He only backed out of the Kyoto agreement in 2001 because it was biased against the U.S. while turning a blind eye to the worst offenders, like Russia and China. I think most presidents have been serious about arms reduction as well - but he has also unwittingly and unnecessarily given Russia an upper hand in all of that, in exchange for nothing. The Iran deal isn't something you can objectively say he accomplished for the good of all, as it's a very divisive issue. I think it's good that he was talking to Iran, but I don't think the deal was good. I don't think we're getting anything for it and there still isn't enough of a reservoir of trust with Iran to do what he did in the way he did it. The deal could have been a LOT better. "One of the most obscructionist Congresses in U.S. history..." you mean the one that was a Democrat congress for much of his time in office, run by Pelosi and Reid?? The one that rammed Obamacare down the nation's throat? Or the one headed by Boehner, who gave in to him constantly? Or the one currently headed by Ryan, who is doing much of the same? Republican voters are pissed at their own leaders for constantly caving in, which is why an outsider like Trump is so popular right now.

It's interesting that you talk about ideals of what a President should be, as if that's what I'm comparing him to. Objectively, I don't have any ideal of what a President should be except to do what is good for his country and the world. It's pretty non-ideological. Your version does seem to be ideological though, based on your summation of him. I mean...how is losing Iraq and over-seeing the greatest advance of the Taliban in Afghanistan since 2002 ideological? And by extension of losing Iraq, the rise of ISIS? Fucking up Libya, Egypt, and Syria? Doing very little for the economy? And while Obamacare has its pluses, again, (objectively) it has its negatives as well. For all the good stories, there's lots of bad ones as well, and its been terribly hard on small businesses. And again, race relations are the worst in this country since probably the 60's. Obama has done nothing to assuage that, but has in fact exacerbated it with his approach. The government has also increased its power and authority, particularly in the realm of the strength of the police, and the department of homeland security has basically been slowly evolving into a standing, occupying army in the form of a police force. All of this is on Obama's watch. From my standpoint, and I'm honestly attempting to be objective, I don't see how any of his successes trump any of his disasters, either by directly contributing to them or just letting them happen by doing nothing. And like I said, there are Democrat voters who would agree with me on much of this - Hillary Clinton being one of them. She loathes Obama and feels he's been asleep at the switch much of the time.

And just one more time....I have to repeat it because Democrat voters seem to totally ignore it....but losing Iraq, the advance of the Taliban in Afghanistan, the rise of ISIS and the quagmire in Syria leading to the worst human refugee crisis since World War 2 - are ABSOLUTE DISASTERS. I don't care if you're on the right or the left, there's no way around it. Utter, profound, devastating and amazing setbacks and failures on a massive scale.

[Elphenor]

You're dumb

[MyOneAndOnly]

Originally Posted by SOUL PWR

I think good or bad most often depends on your perspective of what good or bad is...saying the majority did terribly destructive things, destructive for who? Bad in what way? As for Clinton, yeah he presided over a period of economic growth but it's likely that economic harvest was in part due to the seeds planted by his predecessors, not so much entirely his own policies.

As for Obama - his unemployment numbers have been pretty bad throughout most of his presidency, and they have also been manipulated by the people who publish the statistics, because they've manipulated the way they count the work force. The unemployment has been the worst since Carter, easily. And Carter also sucked. It's fair game to blame Bush for some of this, but Obama has had 8 years to do something about it and for what little he's done, he's also made it worse in other ways, particularly for blacks. I agree there has been "stability" but it's been stability of crappy economic times. I also agree with the Democrat talking point that the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer - but they seem to not be doing anything about it. And it's false that Republican voters are "into" that. As for his environmental committments, a lot of Republican presidents did make committments but they get ignored for them simply because they're Republicans. Bush Jr. had a great record on clean air, for example. He only backed out of the Kyoto agreement in 2001 because it was biased against the U.S. while turning a blind eye to the worst offenders, like Russia and China. I think most presidents have been serious about arms reduction as well - but he has also unwittingly and unnecessarily given Russia an upper hand in all of that, in exchange for nothing. The Iran deal isn't something you can objectively say he accomplished for the good of all, as it's a very divisive issue. I think it's good that he was talking to Iran, but I don't think the deal was good. I don't think we're getting anything for it and there still isn't enough of a reservoir of trust with Iran to do what he did in the way he did it. The deal could have been a LOT better. "One of the most obscructionist Congresses in U.S. history..." you mean the one that was a Democrat congress for much of his time in office, run by Pelosi and Reid?? The one that rammed Obamacare down the nation's throat? Or the one headed by Boehner, who gave in to him constantly? Or the one currently headed by Ryan, who is doing much of the same? Republican voters are pissed at their own leaders for constantly caving in, which is why an outsider like Trump is so popular right now.

It's interesting that you talk about ideals of what a President should be, as if that's what I'm comparing him to. Objectively, I don't have any ideal of what a President should be except to do what is good for his country and the world. It's pretty non-ideological. Your version does seem to be ideological though, based on your summation of him. I mean...how is losing Iraq and over-seeing the greatest advance of the Taliban in Afghanistan since 2002 ideological? And by extension of losing Iraq, the rise of ISIS? Fucking up Libya, Egypt, and Syria? Doing very little for the economy? And while Obamacare has its pluses, again, (objectively) it has its negatives as well. For all the good stories, there's lots of bad ones as well, and its been terribly hard on small businesses. And again, race relations are the worst in this country since probably the 60's. Obama has done nothing to assuage that, but has in fact exacerbated it with his approach. The government has also increased its power and authority, particularly in the realm of the strength of the police, and the department of homeland security has basically been slowly evolving into a standing, occupying army in the form of a police force. All of this is on Obama's watch. From my standpoint, and I'm honestly attempting to be objective, I don't see how any of his successes trump any of his disasters, either by directly contributing to them or just letting them happen by doing nothing. And like I said, there are Democrat voters who would agree with me on much of this - Hillary Clinton being one of them. She loathes Obama and feels he's been asleep at the switch much of the time.

And just one more time....I have to repeat it because Democrat voters seem to totally ignore it....but losing Iraq, the advance of the Taliban in Afghanistan, the rise of ISIS and the quagmire in Syria leading to the worst human refugee crisis since World War 2 - are ABSOLUTE DISASTERS. I don't care if you're on the right or the left, there's no way around it. Utter, profound, devastating and amazing setbacks and failures on a massive scale.

MOAR WORDS
MOAR WORDS
MOAR WORDS
MOAR WORDS
MOAR WORDS
MOAR WORDS
MOAR WORDS
MOAR WORDS
MOAR WORDS
MOAR WORDS
MOAR WORDS
MOAR WORDS
MOAR WORDS
MOAR WORDS
MOAR WORDS
MOAR WORDS
MOAR WORDS
MOAR WORDS
MOAR WORDS
MOAR WORDS
MOAR WORDS
MOAR WORDS
MOAR WORDS
MOAR WORDS
MOAR WORDS
MOAR WORDS
MOAR WORDS
MOAR WORDS
MOAR WORDS
MOAR WORDS
MOAR WORDS
MOAR WORDS
MOAR WORDS
MOAR WORDS
MOAR WORDS
MOAR WORDS
MOAR WORDS
MOAR WORDS
MOAR WORDS
MOAR WORDS
MOAR WORDS
MOAR WORDS
MOAR WORDS
MOAR WORDS
MOAR WORDS
MOAR WORDS
MOAR WORDS
MOAR WORDS
MOAR WORDS
MOAR WORDS
MOAR WORDS
MOAR WORDS
MOAR WORDS
MOAR WORDS
MOAR WORDS
MOAR WORDS
MOAR WORDS
MOAR WORDS
MOAR WORDS
MOAR WORDS
MOAR WORDS
MOAR WORDS
MOAR WORDS
MOAR WORDS
MOAR WORDS
MOAR WORDS
MOAR WORDS
MOAR WORDS
MOAR WORDS
MOAR WORDS
MOAR WORDS
MOAR WORDS
MOAR WORDS
MOAR WORDS
MOAR WORDS
MOAR WORDS
MOAR WORDS
MOAR WORDS
MOAR WORDS
MOAR WORDS
MOAR WORDS
MOAR WORDS
MOAR WORDS
MOAR WORDS
MOAR WORDS
MOAR WORDS
MOAR WORDS
MOAR WORDS
MOAR WORDS
MOAR WORDS
MOAR WORDS
MOAR WORDS
MOAR WORDS
MOAR WORDS
MOAR WORDS
MOAR WORDS
MOAR WORDS
MOAR WORDS
MOAR WORDS
MOAR WORDS
MOAR WORDS
MOAR WORDS
MOAR WORDS
MOAR WORDS
MOAR WORDS
MOAR WORDS
MOAR WORDS
MOAR WORDS
MOAR WORDS
MOAR WORDS
MOAR WORDS
MOAR WORDS
MOAR WORDS
MOAR WORDS
MOAR WORDS
MOAR WORDS
MOAR WORDS
MOAR WORDS
MOAR WORDS
MOAR WORDS
MOAR WORDS
MOAR WORDS
MOAR WORDS
MOAR WORDS
MOAR WORDS
MOAR WORDS
MOAR WORDS
MOAR WORDS
MOAR WORDS
MOAR WORDS
MOAR WORDS
MOAR WORDS
MOAR WORDS
MOAR WORDS
MOAR WORDS
MOAR WORDS
MOAR WORDS
MOAR WORDS
MOAR WORDS
MOAR WORDS
MOAR WORDS
MOAR WORDS
MOAR WORDS
MOAR WORDS
MOAR WORDS
MOAR WORDS
MOAR WORDS
MOAR WORDS
MOAR WORDS
MOAR WORDS
MOAR WORDS
MOAR WORDS
MOAR WORDS
MOAR WORDS
MOAR WORDS
MOAR WORDS
MOAR WORDS
MOAR WORDS
MOAR WORDS
MOAR WORDS
MOAR WORDS
MOAR WORDS
MOAR WORDS
MOAR WORDS
MOAR WORDS
MOAR WORDS
MOAR WORDS
MOAR WORDS
MOAR WORDS
MOAR WORDS
MOAR WORDS
MOAR WORDS
MOAR WORDS
MOAR WORDS
MOAR WORDS
MOAR WORDS
MOAR WORDS
MOAR WORDS
MOAR WORDS
MOAR WORDS
MOAR WORDS
MOAR WORDS
MOAR WORDS
MOAR WORDS
MOAR WORDS
MOAR WORDS
MOAR WORDS
MOAR WORDS
MOAR WORDS
MOAR WORDS
MOAR WORDS
MOAR WORDS
MOAR WORDS
MOAR WORDS
MOAR WORDS
MOAR WORDS
MOAR WORDS
MOAR WORDS
MOAR WORDS
MOAR WORDS

[redbreegull]

Originally Posted by SOUL PWR

I think good or bad most often depends on your perspective of what good or bad is...saying the majority did terribly destructive things, destructive for who? Bad in what way? As for Clinton, yeah he presided over a period of economic growth but it's likely that economic harvest was in part due to the seeds planted by his predecessors, not so much entirely his own policies.

As for Obama - his unemployment numbers have been pretty bad throughout most of his presidency, and they have also been manipulated by the people who publish the statistics, because they've manipulated the way they count the work force. The unemployment has been the worst since Carter, easily. And Carter also sucked. It's fair game to blame Bush for some of this, but Obama has had 8 years to do something about it and for what little he's done, he's also made it worse in other ways, particularly for blacks. I agree there has been "stability" but it's been stability of crappy economic times. I also agree with the Democrat talking point that the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer - but they seem to not be doing anything about it. And it's false that Republican voters are "into" that. As for his environmental committments, a lot of Republican presidents did make committments but they get ignored for them simply because they're Republicans. Bush Jr. had a great record on clean air, for example. He only backed out of the Kyoto agreement in 2001 because it was biased against the U.S. while turning a blind eye to the worst offenders, like Russia and China. I think most presidents have been serious about arms reduction as well - but he has also unwittingly and unnecessarily given Russia an upper hand in all of that, in exchange for nothing. The Iran deal isn't something you can objectively say he accomplished for the good of all, as it's a very divisive issue. I think it's good that he was talking to Iran, but I don't think the deal was good. I don't think we're getting anything for it and there still isn't enough of a reservoir of trust with Iran to do what he did in the way he did it. The deal could have been a LOT better. "One of the most obscructionist Congresses in U.S. history..." you mean the one that was a Democrat congress for much of his time in office, run by Pelosi and Reid?? The one that rammed Obamacare down the nation's throat? Or the one headed by Boehner, who gave in to him constantly? Or the one currently headed by Ryan, who is doing much of the same? Republican voters are pissed at their own leaders for constantly caving in, which is why an outsider like Trump is so popular right now.

It's interesting that you talk about ideals of what a President should be, as if that's what I'm comparing him to. Objectively, I don't have any ideal of what a President should be except to do what is good for his country and the world. It's pretty non-ideological. Your version does seem to be ideological though, based on your summation of him. I mean...how is losing Iraq and over-seeing the greatest advance of the Taliban in Afghanistan since 2002 ideological? And by extension of losing Iraq, the rise of ISIS? Fucking up Libya, Egypt, and Syria? Doing very little for the economy? And while Obamacare has its pluses, again, (objectively) it has its negatives as well. For all the good stories, there's lots of bad ones as well, and its been terribly hard on small businesses. And again, race relations are the worst in this country since probably the 60's. Obama has done nothing to assuage that, but has in fact exacerbated it with his approach. The government has also increased its power and authority, particularly in the realm of the strength of the police, and the department of homeland security has basically been slowly evolving into a standing, occupying army in the form of a police force. All of this is on Obama's watch. From my standpoint, and I'm honestly attempting to be objective, I don't see how any of his successes trump any of his disasters, either by directly contributing to them or just letting them happen by doing nothing. And like I said, there are Democrat voters who would agree with me on much of this - Hillary Clinton being one of them. She loathes Obama and feels he's been asleep at the switch much of the time.

And just one more time....I have to repeat it because Democrat voters seem to totally ignore it....but losing Iraq, the advance of the Taliban in Afghanistan, the rise of ISIS and the quagmire in Syria leading to the worst human refugee crisis since World War 2 - are ABSOLUTE DISASTERS. I don't care if you're on the right or the left, there's no way around it. Utter, profound, devastating and amazing setbacks and failures on a massive scale.

tbh I don't have the time to respond to all of this. Some of the things you say are untrue. Some are baseless, like people are "manipulating" stats to make it seem like Obama has been good for the economy. That's just flat out false, no one is manipulating the stats. The way the stats work were designed by people who measured the health of the economy by how the rich and businesses are doing. And by that fiscally conservative measurement, Obama has been a good economic president. BTW this is the same measure by which Republicans measure their modern messiah Reagan, except that Democrats are almost always actually more fiscally conservative than Republicans. If Obama were a Republican, he would be hailed as some kind of economic savior at this point. His administration has been excellent for businesses and banks... and no, unemployment is not as high as you say it is.

Your environmental analysis is complete nonsense. No other president has done a quarter of the work on the environment Obama has, and that's fucking sad because it's a fraction of what is needed, but that's the truth.

Iraq – literally nothing the US can do at this point. We can stay there for a hundred years or we can let them figure it out themselves. It was an illegal war that killed 100,000 civilians. Obama extracted the US which was the only course of action to take. You are essentially taking him to task for not waging the Bush wars harder. Both Iraq and Afghanistan are unwinnable for the US and always have been, partly because we invaded with no defined goals. No one to blame but Bush.

Obama did misjudge the Arab spring I think but he had nothing to do with Egypt, so I don't even know what that means. You can't fault him for getting involved in Libya and then doing the opposite in Syria in reaction to public opinion. Obama has very little to do with the refugee crisis and if you can explain to me how he could have prevented civil war in Syria you deserve a nobel prize.

And Obama has something to do with race relations souring in the US? LOL he exacerbated racial tensions? Come on dude. I mean in a literal sense yes, most of these nuts have been emboldened by having a black president. After the first Obama election membership to white supremacist and anti-government militias skyrocketed several hundred percent. So if the fact that he is black is what you mean, then yes, you're correct.

Healthcare – I guess you're referencing anecdotal evidence when you say one "hears" bad things. Honestly, I don't care and that's not how you judge the effects of a policy that affects 300 million people. There will always be people who are harmed by policies that are so far-reaching, and there will be people who flourish. Look at the numbers. Always look at the numbers. The ACA does not go nearly far enough in many, many ways... but it is an unbridled success in terms of its two primary selling points, being that it will quantifiably reduce healthcare costs and ease the deficit and save a lot of lives.

Half the things you wrote about have nothing to do with Obama at all, and despite your "acknowledgement" of my very relevant point that many presidents were megalomaniacal butchers of foreign populations or colonialist racist land grabbing thugs, you then attempt to dismiss such concerns by saying well it just depends on what you think is good or bad. Yeah, I think killing hundreds of thousands of innocent people to change someone else's government or take their land is pretty fucking bad, and there's really nothing I can say to you if you disagree. being open to mass murder to further a nationalist agenda is not exactly what I meant by ideological objectivity.

The only thing I agree with you on is the expansion of the security apparatus although you seem to have gotten that confused with the militarization of police which is not exactly the same thing.

[redbreegull]

I would say Clinton was a status quo pres like you are describing. Obama has been much more activist. Healthcare is a great example. Clinton wanted healthcare reform but he backed off real quick when he realized the protracted political battle it would involve.

[redbreegull]

Originally Posted by Poots

His healthcare thing was such a compromise bullshit nothing. If he is going to hang his legacy on that then he can say hello to Mr. Warren G. Harding at no. 38.

so how could he have gotten a better law passed?

it might be "nothing" compared to what is really needed, like how his environmental efforts are a minor fraction of what is called for, but it is not "nothing" to the thousands of people who won't die because they can now get insurance and it's not "nothing" in terms of the huge amount of money that will be saved

[SOUL PWR]

Originally Posted by redbreegull

tbh I don't have the time to respond to all of this. Some of the things you say are untrue. Some are baseless, like people are "manipulating" stats to make it seem like Obama has been good for the economy. That's just flat out false, no one is manipulating the stats. The way the stats work were designed by people who measured the health of the economy by how the rich and businesses are doing. And by that fiscally conservative measurement, Obama has been a good economic president. BTW this is the same measure by which Republicans measure their modern messiah Reagan, except that Democrats are almost always actually more fiscally conservative than Republicans. If Obama were a Republican, he would be hailed as some kind of economic savior at this point. His administration has been excellent for businesses and banks... and no, unemployment is not as high as you say it is.

Your environmental analysis is complete nonsense. No other president has done a quarter of the work on the environment Obama has, and that's fucking sad because it's a fraction of what is needed, but that's the truth.

Iraq – literally nothing the US can do at this point. We can stay there for a hundred years or we can let them figure it out themselves. It was an illegal war that killed 100,000 civilians. Obama extracted the US which was the only course of action to take. You are essentially taking him to task for not waging the Bush wars harder. Both Iraq and Afghanistan are unwinnable for the US and always have been, partly because we invaded with no defined goals. No one to blame but Bush.

Obama did misjudge the Arab spring I think but he had nothing to do with Egypt, so I don't even know what that means. You can't fault him for getting involved in Libya and then doing the opposite in Syria in reaction to public opinion. Obama has very little to do with the refugee crisis and if you can explain to me how he could have prevented civil war in Syria you deserve a nobel prize.

And Obama has something to do with race relations souring in the US? LOL he exacerbated racial tensions? Come on dude. I mean in a literal sense yes, most of these nuts have been emboldened by having a black president. After the first Obama election membership to white supremacist and anti-government militias skyrocketed several hundred percent. So if the fact that he is black is what you mean, then yes, you're correct.

Healthcare – I guess you're referencing anecdotal evidence when you say one "hears" bad things. Honestly, I don't care and that's not how you judge the effects of a policy that affects 300 million people. There will always be people who are harmed by policies that are so far-reaching, and there will be people who flourish. Look at the numbers. Always look at the numbers. The ACA does not go nearly far enough in many, many ways... but it is an unbridled success in terms of its two primary selling points, being that it will quantifiably reduce healthcare costs and ease the deficit and save a lot of lives.

Half the things you wrote about have nothing to do with Obama at all, and despite your "acknowledgement" of my very relevant point that many presidents were megalomaniacal butchers of foreign populations or colonialist racist land grabbing thugs, you then attempt to dismiss such concerns by saying well it just depends on what you think is good or bad. Yeah, I think killing hundreds of thousands of innocent people to change someone else's government or take their land is pretty fucking bad, and there's really nothing I can say to you if you disagree. being open to mass murder to further a nationalist agenda is not exactly what I meant by ideological objectivity.

The only thing I agree with you on is the expansion of the security apparatus although you seem to have gotten that confused with the militarization of police which is not exactly the same thing.

Hey, whatever man. I see I'm not gonna convince you. I don't agree with probaby 85% of what you said, but whatever. I think there's a little bit of a perception miscommunication as well...as often happens between people who debate on two opposite sides of an issue. What I mean is, they tend to project what they disagree with or see wrong with the world onto the other person - though in fact, I don't disagree with you on many of those things.

I do wonder where you get your news, I think your information is limited on some stuff, particular about the ACA. You seem to have this completely rosy picture of it, and there's a whole other side to it. Same with the economy. And I acknowledge that Republicans might pull the same shenanigans out of their ass as Democrats do about Reagan. I'm no Reagan worshipper. But you seem to put a lot of misplaced faith in the numbers that come out of Washington.

I dunno where you get your idea about Democrats being more fiscally conservative than Republicans.

I think there's a lot of preventative stuff Obama could have done with Syria, we practically initiated the rebellion there and we have only continued to muddy the waters there even more with our wishy washy stance towards a fanatical faction (so-called moderate "freedom fighters") that we have only supported enough to an even more flavorful shit stew. We had a major hand in initiating the problem, and then acted indecisively afterwards - that is how you fuck things up and create a human crisis.

No, I don't mean anything about Obama being black. One would think that having a black president would improve race relations. It's amazing it hasn't. I think Obama's reaction, and his minions' reactions, to the racial situations going on, have exacerbated the issue. And in general, I believe Democrats politically benefit from a divided society with groups of resentful minorities looking for a powerful federal ally. That's pretty much the Democrat game-plan.

You seem to have a no-win attitude about Iraq and Afghanistan that I disagree with. Victory and some degree of "stability" was obtained - and then we pulled out and Afghanistan became mismanaged, and as a result Iraq was lost and Afghanistan has deteriorated extremely. We can argue all day long about whether or not we should have been there in the first place, and that would be an interesting convo, but the fact is once there, we had a responsibility to not fuck it up, and Obama did just that. Yes - it's nation building, and yes - that takes a generational committment of forces. We've done it in South Korea, Japan, Germany and elsewhere, and it has worked there. It would have worked for Iraq and Afghanistan too if we did it right and at least maintained a significant enough force with enough capabilities to keep the peace. But because of mismanagement, Iraq and Afghanistan have just become another Vietnam (and by extension, Cambodia) after the U.S. pull-out. For someone who claims to be smart, Obama sure didn't learn from history - or maybe he didn't care. But he is the man who lost Iraq and Afghanistan. Democrats want to shed responsibility and just say it was unwinnable but that's bullshit if you compare it to what we've historically done and are capable of doing. Generational committments are possible and can yield success, as they have done in the past. Apathetic lack of commitment is no excuse.

[Order 66]

iraq and afghanistan can totally be stabilized. we just have to do things

[redbreegull]

Afghanistan has not been successfully occupied and governed by outside forces since before Alexander the Great

[redbreegull]

you know we really fucked up by pulling out of Vietnam. If we had just not had such a no-win attitude and a bit more resolve, we totally could have won a sustainable victory there.

[redbreegull]

and really who cares that Vietnam is now one of the fastest growing economies in south Asia, we totally could have fixed their shit better if we had just stayed and killed a lot more people for capitalism

[redbreegull]

the comparison to Japan and Germany is asinine and either you don't know anything about the reconstruction of those countries or you are purposely making a deceptive comparison. How exactly could Obama have secured that kind of funding from Congress when he's already been painted as the worst spender of all time despite the fact that he has actually grown spending at a lower rate than any president since WWII?

[MyOneAndOnly]

the United States hasn't won a war since 1945

and it hasn't been attacked by a foreign power since 1941.

[redbreegull]

Originally Posted by Poots

redbreegull, I'm sure you're a sincere guy, but the above post reads like it was put out by the DNC propaganda machine. "He has actually grown spending at a lower rate..." WTF does that even mean?

It's not that complicated, man.

PolitiFact – Barack Obama has lowest spending record of any recent president: Mostly true

So, using inflation-adjusted dollars, Obama had the second-lowest increase -- in fact, he actually presided over a decrease once inflation is taken into account.

Bottom line: The Facebook post’s claim that government spending under Obama is "slower than at any time in nearly 60 years" is very close to accurate.

Most presidents in the post-war era have increased the percentage of government spending at a consecutively higher rate than their predecessors. Obama has significantly slowed the growth rate of our spending. I understand this kind of statistic that actually requires someone to sit down and think for 10 seconds instead of being able to click share knowing it absolutely confirms their biases without a moment's reflection might be unappealing to some.

Maybe explaining it this way is easier: When you adjust for the value of the dollar, Obama has decreased spending from the Bush era. The only other post-war president to actually decrease spending from the previous president was Eisenhower. So the three most conservative spenders from WWII-present have been, in order: Eisenhower, Obama, and Clinton.

Unsurprisingly, other than Obama, the president in modern times who has slowed spending the most compared to his predecessor is Clinton. Clinton did increase spending (using adjusted dollars) but at a relatively low rate from the H.W. Bush years. The three men responsible for increasing spending the most are, in order: Johnson, W. Bush, and Kennedy.

[MyOneAndOnly]

WTF? Obama considering appointing A conservative Republican to the Supreme Court. Ugh

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...court-vacancy/

[Reggaeluv2000]

Hahahahaaaa he's gotta appease the conspiracy theorists

[redbreegull]

my guess is the white house floated the rumor in order to degrade the GOP's position on refusing to hear a nomination

that would seriously damage obama's legacy I just can't really see it

[Reggaeluv2000]

So will he find a way to stay in office or will we actually keep the rotation going for new prezident?
Will 2016 be the last of obummer care?

[redbreegull]

Obamacare is forever at this point, sorry everyone who doesn't care about the 50,000 people who are alive because of this law

[Reggaeluv2000]

Can I get proof that it's 50,000 and not 49,967?

[redbreegull]

sure, I believe it's an "at least" figure. google Obamacare lives saved WaPo fact check. I've already linked to it like 4 times on this site

[Reggaeluv2000]

You think those are legitimate #'s?
Everything is so gimmicky
Link it 5 times

[redbreegull]

Originally Posted by Reggaeluv2000

You think those are legitimate #'s?
Everything is so gimmicky
Link it 5 times

you a bitch

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...atient-deaths/

http://www.forbes.com/sites/brucejap.../#7380c665d800