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

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

    There are obviously places Obama fell short. I think he didn't take monetary policy nearly seriously enough, that the drone war is a moral catastrophe, that he's fallen short on combating HIV/AIDS and other public health scourges abroad, that the 2009 surge in Afghanistan was a mistake, and that perpetrators of torture and other war crimes from the Bush administration should have been criminally prosecuted. But while Obama could have accomplished more, it could never be said that he accomplished little.

    "When you add the ACA to the reforms in the stimulus package, Dodd-Frank, and his various climate initiatives," Pierson says, "I don't think there is any doubt: On domestic issues Obama is the most consequential and successful Democratic president since LBJ. It isn't close." And LBJ's presidency was so marred by the Vietnam War that he declined to seek a second term there is no similar stain on Obama's record.

    You can generally divide American presidents into two camps: the mildly good or bad but ultimately forgettable (Clinton, Carter, Taft, Harrison), and the hugely consequential for good or ill (FDR, Lincoln, Nixon, Andrew Johnson). Whether you love or hate his record, there's no question Obama is firmly in the latter camp.
    http://www.vox.com/2015/6/26/8849925...ory-presidents

    I heard them discussing the idea the other morning on the Diane Rheem show on NPR if Obama was going to go into the history books as a great President. So the question is being discussed now. One of the journalists that morning said that he thought it was too early to tell and I agree. It took how long for, the in his time hugely disliked, Truman, to be recognized as a great President?

    At any rate the defining word here is consequential, not popular, not great.

    Or will it be Chief Justice Roberts that will be famous as a Consequential Chief Justice? Has that been what he is trying to do--leave a legacy of a very important SCOTUS and himself as a great Chief Justice?
    Homo homini lupus

  • #2
    He might be... He is also the worst in over 540 million years.
    Watts Up With That? | The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change.

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by Jannie View Post
      http://www.vox.com/2015/6/26/8849925...ory-presidents

      I heard them discussing the idea the other morning on the Diane Rheem show on NPR if Obama was going to go into the history books as a great President. So the question is being discussed now. One of the journalists that morning said that he thought it was too early to tell and I agree. It took how long for, the in his time hugely disliked, Truman, to be recognized as a great President?

      At any rate the defining word here is consequential, not popular, not great.

      Or will it be Chief Justice Roberts that will be famous as a Consequential Chief Justice? Has that been what he is trying to do--leave a legacy of a very important SCOTUS and himself as a great Chief Justice?
      That is something I would expect of NPR. It is an absolute crock.

      Obama has nearly doubled the national debt. His inept foreign policy, along with Hillary Clinton, has led to increased violence, religious persecution, the rise of ISIS, rape, pillage, and murder in the Middle East, and he has done nothing to control or reform immigration.

      Obama is the worst president the US has had in quite some time-worse than Carter, Harding and the string of nonentities that preceeded the Civil War.

      Sincerely,
      M
      We are not now that strength which in old days
      Moved earth and heaven; that which we are we are; One equal temper of heroic hearts
      Made weak by time and fate but strong in will
      To strive to seek to find and not to yield.

      Comment


      • #4
        That would be "most INconsequential president" in American history. Bankrupting America to install a faulty and hugely costly socialist medical plan is a disaster, not an achievement.
        Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes? Who is watching the watchers?

        Comment


        • #5
          The motto of Obama is : it is better to be rembered as the worst president in 540 million years than not to be remembered .

          Comment


          • #6
            No, but if you were to press the case, you might say he is if you put that in a negative context. That is, he's the worst president of the last 50 years (and beyond). So, in that context, he has been consequential in harming America.

            Domestically:

            He has stirred up more hate, discontent, racism, and inequality than any President in the last 50 years.
            He has presided over the worst economy in over 50 years.
            There is the largest divide between rich and poor, with more people losing ground economically, than any President of the last 50 years.

            In foreign affairs...
            He, well the prize committee, made a laughing stock of the Nobel Prize.
            Has done more to alienate allies and comfort foes than any President of the last 50 years.
            Has allowed Islamic terrorism to be rekindled on an immense scale that didn't exist previously.

            Has been one of the least effective, if not the most ineffective, Presidents dealing with Congress.

            With the possible exception of LBJ, he is the most racist and bigoted President of the last 50 years.

            He may not be the worst President in US history but he's down in the bottom five. I'd put him down there with Pierce, or Fillmore.
            Both had contentious, nation dividing Presidencies and failed to do much about it.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
              He has stirred up more hate, discontent, racism, and inequality than any President in the last 50 years.
              I've seen you and others throw this around a few times. At this point I would love to see evidence for these things presented. It would be nice to settle this once and for all.

              Comment


              • #8
                Let's start with the obvious: Obama and his wife sat in the pews of Reverend Wright's church for 20 + years...

                Michelle's "I've never been proud of America..." comment Barack never addressed...

                The Beer Summit, Trayvon Martin, etc. Obama regularly injects himself in ongoing legal situations where a Black and non-Black are involved. He also does so at an early point and usually in a way that he is later forced to take back or regret having said.

                Allowing individuals in top positions in his administration like Thomas Perez, Eric Holder, and others.

                http://nypost.com/2014/08/17/why-the...sm-everywhere/

                I'd start there.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
                  Let's start with the obvious: Obama and his wife sat in the pews of Reverend Wright's church for 20 + years...

                  Michelle's "I've never been proud of America..." comment Barack never addressed...

                  The Beer Summit, Trayvon Martin, etc. Obama regularly injects himself in ongoing legal situations where a Black and non-Black are involved. He also does so at an early point and usually in a way that he is later forced to take back or regret having said.

                  Allowing individuals in top positions in his administration like Thomas Perez, Eric Holder, and others.

                  http://nypost.com/2014/08/17/why-the...sm-everywhere/

                  I'd start there.
                  Okay. Now, can you quantify this in a measurable way against other presidencies to demonstrate your initial claims?

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Daemon of Decay View Post
                    Okay. Now, can you quantify this in a measurable way against other presidencies to demonstrate your initial claims?
                    Feel free. I suggest you make it a thesis for a Master's degree.

                    That's what you are demanding. It is a variant of the Argument from Ignorance.

                    That is, no matter how much proof is given the response is that it is insufficient to prove the case. (e.g., an argument like this one: "Prove that God exists." When insufficient proof is given, state "Well then, God must not exist.")

                    I briefly demonstrated that Obama has a pattern of being around, associating with, hiring, and personal actions that indicate he's racist. No President of the last 50 years could be pointed to as having a similar decades long record. That would indicate Obama is the most racist President of the period.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      When a sitting president injects his own opinion into a current event, much like he did with the Trayvon Martin case, before it had been settled in a court of law, he is asking for trouble. "O" has done that a few times, and each time it has come to light that he was on the losing side of the argument. This president has been divisive like no other that I have been around for. Jan. 20, 2017 cannot get here fast enough.
                      Don't waste your time always searching for those wasted years...

                      Comment


                      • #13
                        It's all Bush's fault.
                        My worst jump story:
                        My 13th jump was on the 13th day of the month, aircraft number 013.
                        As recorded on my DA Form 1307 Individual Jump Log.
                        No lie.

                        ~
                        "Everything looks all right. Have a good jump, eh."
                        -2 Commando Jumpmaster

                        Comment


                        • #14
                          Perfect. Now, how does this compare to previous presidencies? Going back 50 years takes us to who, JFK? LBJ?

                          We'll also have to look at expressions of said racism or inequality - the "race riots" of the 1960s were far more explosive and dangerous than what we've seen over the past two years, so we'll have to compare those as well.

                          The final step would be to measure the legal aspects as well. Desegregation was a very volatile period in history and the legal wrangling around that issue would certainly play a very important role in evaluating race relations during this period. Before Civil Rights legislation, one could argue that racism was far more pronounced by its very nature. One could also point to employment figures, etc. as a representation of this attitude in society as a whole.

                          Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
                          Feel free. I suggest you make it a thesis for a Master's degree.

                          That's what you are demanding. It is a variant of the Argument from Ignorance.

                          That is, no matter how much proof is given the response is that it is insufficient to prove the case. (e.g., an argument like this one: "Prove that God exists." When insufficient proof is given, state "Well then, God must not exist.")

                          I briefly demonstrated that Obama has a pattern of being around, associating with, hiring, and personal actions that indicate he's racist. No President of the last 50 years could be pointed to as having a similar decades long record. That would indicate Obama is the most racist President of the period.
                          No, you made a claim without any attempt to sustain your argument, making it no different than claiming you can squeeze sardines out of your nipples.

                          As Doc shows, finding quantifiable data on race relations is not difficult. Even a presidency as opaque and afraid of any open examination of its records as the Obama administration cannot keep polls, legal documents, and other quantifiable measurements hidden.

                          And finally, don't try to falsely claim others are using fallacies just to justify your unwillingness to support your own arguments. It's disingenuous.

                          Comment


                          • #15
                            Originally posted by Daemon of Decay View Post
                            Perfect. Now, how does this compare to previous presidencies? Going back 50 years takes us to who, JFK? LBJ?

                            We'll also have to look at expressions of said racism or inequality - the "race riots" of the 1960s were far more explosive and dangerous than what we've seen over the past two years, so we'll have to compare those as well.

                            The final step would be to measure the legal aspects as well. Desegregation was a very volatile period in history and the legal wrangling around that issue would certainly play a very important role in evaluating race relations during this period. Before Civil Rights legislation, one could argue that racism was far more pronounced by its very nature. One could also point to employment figures, etc. as a representation of this attitude in society as a whole.


                            No, you made a claim without any attempt to sustain your argument, making it no different than claiming you can squeeze sardines out of your nipples.

                            As Doc shows, finding quantifiable data on race relations is not difficult. Even a presidency as opaque and afraid of any open examination of its records as the Obama administration cannot keep polls, legal documents, and other quantifiable measurements hidden.

                            And finally, don't try to falsely claim others are using fallacies just to justify your unwillingness to support your own arguments. It's disingenuous.
                            It's an indirect proof just as my original ones were. But, it shows a pattern of continued behavior and results that substantially buttress the argument that Obama is a racist.

                            Also, my claim wasn't false. Asking for more and more proof regardless of how much is given is an argument from ignorance.

                            Comment

                            Latest Topics

                            Collapse

                            Working...
                            X