Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Is Obama the Most Consequential President in the last 50 years?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • drivin-fool
    replied
    Originally posted by Grognard Gunny View Post
    Gentlemen; Forget it! One will NEVER provide enough substance to keep the Obama apologists from doing what they do best.... tell us what a great man he is/was.

    If he had done what he promised in the Election lead-up.... But no, he did not. Then, wonder amongst wonders, he got reelected. (I still can't figure that one out.) I guess the Obama (...isn't it wonderful that a black man finally got to be President!) apologists just couldn't give it up!

    At any rate, the Obama worshipers will never be changed from their "true path"..... it's really a bit like the rest of life. (I made my mind up YEARS ago and I will NOT change it.) No matter WHAT he does to trash the Nation, there will be those who will NEVER change their minds (?), or what passes for a mind.

    Now we may have to suffer a bunch of "Isn't it wonderful that a woman finally got to be President?" adherents. (They NEVER learn!!)

    Perhaps they might be better served by someone that might be good for the Country..... rather than someone who is simply "different". I don't even care what party.

    GG
    This ^^^

    Originally posted by Half Pint John View Post
    WHEN he was elected I was all for it. The first black President which seemed to fulfill much of what our history is about.

    Sadly he has shown himself and his wife to be the first N word president. He is first and foremost the President of Black Americans and does his best to distance himself from the rest.

    Colin Powell, why didn't you run.
    HPJ and I have not agreed on much, but lately we are finding a middle ground. Happy to back you 100% on this one John.

    Leave a comment:


  • Mountain Man
    replied
    Originally posted by Half Pint John View Post
    And Ronnies speech effectedvthat??? How?
    Please tell me you have actually read at least a little bit of history, especially the parts about Gorbachev and his desire to implement glasnost, which coincided with the political and economic fall of the Soviet Union and the decision to abandon the Wall, which coincided nicely with Reagan's speech and made Gorbachev look like the good guy. Any of this ring a bell?

    If you don't like Reagan, fine. I was always a little leery about a guy who's wife was into astrology myself, so let's compromise and rewrite history - an earthquake in BFE, caused by harmonic sonic reverbrations that began with Reagan's speech when it was broadcast, caused the Wall to fall down all by itself. OK?

    Leave a comment:


  • Half Pint John
    replied
    Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
    No, but without their permission it would not have come down at all.
    And Ronnies speech effectedvthat??? How?

    Leave a comment:


  • Steve573
    replied
    For those of us who grew up under the fear of nuclear war, which I did and still remember as a feeling of dread that colored pretty much all other things, the collapse of the USSR was one of the most significant events in memory. I was in the military during the late 70s and early 80s and it was definitely a whole different feeling.

    Leave a comment:


  • Bwaha
    replied

    Leave a comment:


  • Mountain Man
    replied
    Originally posted by Half Pint John View Post
    Ronnie had next to nothing to do with the Wall coming down. He address the leader of the USSR who didn't build the Wall and it wasn't the USSR who tore it down.
    No, but without their permission it would not have come down at all.

    Leave a comment:


  • Half Pint John
    replied
    Ronnie had next to nothing to do with the Wall coming down. He address the leader of the USSR who didn't build the Wall and it wasn't the USSR who tore it down.

    Leave a comment:


  • Bwaha
    replied
    I'd say that Ronnie was the most significant. the Salt Treaties, the Berlin wall, ect...

    http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexpe...reagan-legacy/

    And that's a PBS pov..

    Leave a comment:


  • T. A. Gardner
    replied
    Originally posted by Steve573 View Post
    I think it's just too early to tell exactly how much of an impact his presidency will have had. 20 or 30 years from now we might look back and see where the real consequential decisions he might have made ended up. I think to be fair there is a positive impact for sure: he's the first black person elected POTUS, which despite his lack of success opens the door for another one at some point in the future. I firmly believe that if another candidate was running who people felt was truly qualified and they felt inspired to vote for him or her race wouldn't be a factor like it might have been in the past. I know for me it wouldn't matter...also if the candidate was hispanic, Jewish or whatever. It would be nice just to have a good candidate for a change.
    I also feel that he never was qualified but was swept in by people seeking some change from the previous 8 years, and he took advantage of that enthusiasm more than his qualifications. I feel that as far as his domestic policy he has done more to stir up racial strife than any president in my lifetime. He has responded, as others have said, too quickly to a lot of incidents and I feel he should be held personally responsible for a lot of the rioting in Ferguson and some other places...his response to the Mike Brown shooting was totally inappropriate in that he had no evidence either way he just reacted and it turned out wrongly. His foreign policy I feel is a continuous string of bad decisions, bad moves, etc. as if he has no idea what foreign policy is or who our allies are. He's done more to alienate our allies than any previous president I can remember.
    If I were emperor I would have fired him just for the way he handled the Bowe Bergdahl case, to be honest. I felt that was handled 180 degrees from the way it should have been...soldiers died looking for this guy and they end up trading terrorists to get him back. Unbelievable that he seemed impervious to what I feel was justifiable criticism for this blunder.
    I suspect when historians look back on his Presidency it won't be decisions he made but rather decisions he didn't make that will be most consequential.
    In foreign policy his leaving things to play out without any US involvement has proved just short of a disaster. And, yes, where he did make a decision it was usually late, following other nations, and more often than not both wrong and ineffective.
    The Arab Spring turned into a debacle.
    ISIS is another debacle.
    His premature claim Al Qaeda is finished turned out completely wrong.
    Handling crises like the Benghazi incident was completely incompetent and amateurish.
    On treaties and such, he has been near totally ineffective.

    On the domestic side,
    His economic performance has been abysmal. The US economy is in the worst shape in decades and almost in the worst shape since the great depression.
    None of his domestic initiatives except Obamacare have moved forward.
    His use of executive branch rules and regulation issuing may very well be seen as a slam on the economy, particularly the use of the EPA. That remains to be seen if they place the carbon and ozone rules in affect.
    His ability to work with Congress is exceptionally bad. I don't think there is a President in the last 100 years at least that couldn't work with Congress as poorly as Obama has proved.


    I think in the long run his only real claim to success will be as a rhetorical speaker. That is a rabble rouser.

    Leave a comment:


  • Steve573
    replied
    Originally posted by Jannie View Post
    The question wasn’t if Obama was the best. It was if he was one of the most Consequential Presidents in last 50 years. I didn’t ask if he was popular or well liked. Obviously, he has inspired a great deal of hate and, I think, racism that had sort of lain low before he was elected. So a huge negative effect in those regards.

    If we look at consequences of his election—we have changes in voting laws and changes in campaign laws—perhaps in response to his election and in an attempt to prevent another black man from being elected. No matter what you believe in the rightness or wrongness of these changes they are hugely consequential for millions of people.

    The change in Health Insurance Law was something that Presidents for the past 100 years had tried to bring about—so if nothing else what he has done has really affected for the better millions of people. Some think this is hugely negative, but some think it is very positive. The Hospitals and Insurance Industry certainly like it, and I suspect that many folks that did not have good coverage like it quite well.

    Paul Krugman last year thought his economic policies were hugely consequential. I know that hubbie’s and my finances have improved hugely under his administration.

    http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics...-than-clinton/

    Seb French, the quote I posted was more about Obama’s domestic policies rather than his foreign policy, which I agree has been quite weak.

    However, the question is how consequential has he been.

    If you blame him for the release of ISIS (I think IS in Iraq, the precursor, was formed in 2006, however) into the world and you have sadly seen the results of that in France, then that is pretty consequential, even if negative.

    And how many here think he is causing the US to fail hugely. Then that is consequential. If he brings about the fall of the US, which I clearly doubt, then that would be more Consequential than any other President in being transformational.
    I think it's just too early to tell exactly how much of an impact his presidency will have had. 20 or 30 years from now we might look back and see where the real consequential decisions he might have made ended up. I think to be fair there is a positive impact for sure: he's the first black person elected POTUS, which despite his lack of success opens the door for another one at some point in the future. I firmly believe that if another candidate was running who people felt was truly qualified and they felt inspired to vote for him or her race wouldn't be a factor like it might have been in the past. I know for me it wouldn't matter...also if the candidate was hispanic, Jewish or whatever. It would be nice just to have a good candidate for a change.
    I also feel that he never was qualified but was swept in by people seeking some change from the previous 8 years, and he took advantage of that enthusiasm more than his qualifications. I feel that as far as his domestic policy he has done more to stir up racial strife than any president in my lifetime. He has responded, as others have said, too quickly to a lot of incidents and I feel he should be held personally responsible for a lot of the rioting in Ferguson and some other places...his response to the Mike Brown shooting was totally inappropriate in that he had no evidence either way he just reacted and it turned out wrongly. His foreign policy I feel is a continuous string of bad decisions, bad moves, etc. as if he has no idea what foreign policy is or who our allies are. He's done more to alienate our allies than any previous president I can remember.
    If I were emperor I would have fired him just for the way he handled the Bowe Bergdahl case, to be honest. I felt that was handled 180 degrees from the way it should have been...soldiers died looking for this guy and they end up trading terrorists to get him back. Unbelievable that he seemed impervious to what I feel was justifiable criticism for this blunder.

    Leave a comment:


  • Jannie
    replied
    The question wasn’t if Obama was the best. It was if he was one of the most Consequential Presidents in last 50 years. I didn’t ask if he was popular or well liked. Obviously, he has inspired a great deal of hate and, I think, racism that had sort of lain low before he was elected. So a huge negative effect in those regards.

    If we look at consequences of his election—we have changes in voting laws and changes in campaign laws—perhaps in response to his election and in an attempt to prevent another black man from being elected. No matter what you believe in the rightness or wrongness of these changes they are hugely consequential for millions of people.

    The change in Health Insurance Law was something that Presidents for the past 100 years had tried to bring about—so if nothing else what he has done has really affected for the better millions of people. Some think this is hugely negative, but some think it is very positive. The Hospitals and Insurance Industry certainly like it, and I suspect that many folks that did not have good coverage like it quite well.

    Paul Krugman last year thought his economic policies were hugely consequential. I know that hubbie’s and my finances have improved hugely under his administration.
    "People who had this idea that Obama was going to bring a transformation of America, I thought were being naïve," Krugman told Karl this week. "But, by God, we got health reform, and we got a significant financial reform. We are getting the environmental action … it's not everything you would have wanted, but it's more than anyone else has done for decades."

    Krugman also said that Obama's achievements were more consequential than those of Republican President Ronald Reagan.

    "In the end, Reagan did not leave the structure of America's society particularly different," Krugman said. "He did not in fact change the basic legacy of Lyndon Johnson and FDR."

    Krugman's ranking of consequential presidents, he said, would be Franklin Roosevelt, Lyndon Johnson, followed by Obama and then Reagan.
    http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics...-than-clinton/

    Seb French, the quote I posted was more about Obama’s domestic policies rather than his foreign policy, which I agree has been quite weak.

    However, the question is how consequential has he been.

    If you blame him for the release of ISIS (I think IS in Iraq, the precursor, was formed in 2006, however) into the world and you have sadly seen the results of that in France, then that is pretty consequential, even if negative.

    And how many here think he is causing the US to fail hugely. Then that is consequential. If he brings about the fall of the US, which I clearly doubt, then that would be more Consequential than any other President in being transformational.

    Leave a comment:


  • Half Pint John
    replied
    Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
    Fine. Then Doc answered your question in full whether I did or not. That makes your point moot and the fact that Obama is a racist quantified as well as demonstrated by individual cases.

    It doesn't change the position that Obama is a racist however. It verifies it.
    WHEN he was elected I was all for it. The first black President which seemed to fulfill much of what our history is about.

    Sadly he has shown himself and his wife to be the first N word president. He is first and foremost the President of Black Americans and does his best to distance himself from the rest.

    Colin Powell, why didn't you run.

    Leave a comment:


  • ForIAmSparticus
    replied
    Hell No

    Leave a comment:


  • Mountain Man
    replied
    Originally posted by Grognard Gunny View Post
    Gentlemen; Forget it! One will NEVER provide enough substance to keep the Obama apologists from doing what they do best.... tell us what a great man he is/was.

    If he had done what he promised in the Election lead-up.... But no, he did not. Then, wonder amongst wonders, he got reelected. (I still can't figure that one out.) I guess the Obama (...isn't it wonderful that a black man finally got to be President!) apologists just couldn't give it up!

    At any rate, the Obama worshipers will never be changed from their "true path"..... it's really a bit like the rest of life. (I made my mind up YEARS ago and I will NOT change it.) No matter WHAT he does to trash the Nation, there will be those who will NEVER change their minds (?), or what passes for a mind.

    Now we may have to suffer a bunch of "Isn't it wonderful that a woman finally got to be President?" adherents. (They NEVER learn!!)

    Perhaps they might be better served by someone that might be good for the Country..... rather than someone who is simply "different". I don't even care what party.

    GG
    Agreed.

    Arguing with the faithful is like wrestling with a pig - you just get dirty and muddy and the pig loves it.

    Gives us a better understanding of Hitler and Nazi Germany though, doesn't it - the Germans loved him and worshipped him no matter what, just like the Obamites.

    Leave a comment:


  • T. A. Gardner
    replied
    Originally posted by Daemon of Decay View Post
    So where is your proof that Obama is, himself, a racist?

    No, it documents that in recent years feelings of racism and inequality have increased under Obama's watch. His failures as a president do not explicitly mark him as a racist.

    If you're going to criticize him, do it over something he has done. There are so many options to choose from that you don't need to make things up as well.
    This isn't about my proof. It is about any proof Obama is a racist. That has been demonstrated here in part by me, in part by others. Now you are offering a subjectivist fallacy.

    The subjectivist fallacy is committed when someone resists the conclusion of an argument not by questioning whether the argument’s premises support its conclusion, but by treating the conclusion as subjective when it is in fact objective. Typically this is done by labelling the arguer’s conclusion as just an “opinion”, a “perspective”, a “point of view”, or similar.

    Leave a comment:

Latest Topics

Collapse

Working...
X