jump to last post 1-8 of 8 discussions (160 posts)

What is YOUR analysis, opinion, and synopsis of President Barack Obama

  1. gmwilliams profile image86
    gmwilliamsposted 3 years ago

    http://s4.hubimg.com/u/8382291_f520.jpg
    in light of the current sociopolitical and socioeconomic situation regarding the United States of America? Do you believe that President Obama is doing the best job he can under the circumstances? Do you maintain that President Obama can do a much better job as President?  Do you contend that President Obama has lost what respect he had as a President?  What is YOUR opinion regarding the current political climate in the United States?

    1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
      Kathryn L Hillposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      I just wonder why his hair is turning so gray.

    2. 0
      Brenda Durhamposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      He is very immature, confused, judgemental, bullying, a "great" Instigator,  a "great" Misleader of those who refuse to think for themselves,   a mediocre speaker, average intelligence, above-average in narcissism and manipulative skills.
      Reckon that tells ya my analysis.

      1. 0
        mbuggiehposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        While I think your analysis is a bit hyperbolic (and is only going to get people all riled up), I do think your analysis has some merit.

        My sense, as a historian, is that Obama is a president much like Woodrow Wilson.

        In other words, a relentless inability to engage the political opposition and the American people in a meaningful and productive dialogue is contributing to a polarization of politics; a polarization of Washington, DC and the country along rhetorical and ideological lines.

        That polarization coupled with a collection of advisers who are either (a) left out of the loop or (b) controlling the loop is leading, it seems, to missteps and indecision; to confusion and conflict.

        All of that said, I think former VP Dick Cheney got it right when he described the Obama Administration as "dithering".  Historians may remember Obama, as they do Herbert Hoover---as the great ditherer in chief.

    3. 61
      AnalogousMethodposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Obama has failed in what he claimed he was going to do. He won't take responsibility for anything, and he pretends that reality isn't even happening. People write him letters talking about how they lose their jobs or healthcare or hours because of the ACA, and then he goes on TV and says that the ACA isn't hurting any jobs.

      I pretty much don't care for any of our leaders. They fight like little children, they bicker over how to screw over the American people best, while exempting themselves from the laws they pass, and their answer to everything is more government, more regulations, more taxes, more rules, more red tape.

      There are a few exceptions, but not enough for it to matter.

      1. gmwilliams profile image86
        gmwilliamsposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        +1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000!.

    4. 0
      mbuggiehposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      It should be obvious that The Affordable Care Act will be the signature domestic achievement of the Obama Administration and the Tea Party---which was formed in direct response to Obama's election, just cannot accept that President Obama did what presidents having been trying to do since Theodore Roosevelt proposed a national health insurance program in around 1901: Reform access to health insurance coverage in a way that gets health insurance to America's working poor and middle-class, and in the process, expands access to health care.

      1. 61
        AnalogousMethodposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Yup,  everyone will know that Obama is responsible for Obamacare.

        http://www.mercurynews.com/nation-world … rynews.com

        "Vinson, of San Jose, will pay $1,800 more a year for an individual policy, while Waschura, of Portola Valley, will cough up almost $10,000 more for insurance for his family of four."

  2. Sychophantastic profile image84
    Sychophantasticposted 3 years ago

    It was only 9 days into his presidency when Bill O'Reilly began calling his policies failures. 9 days. Pretty much Obama has served as President with an unprecedented amount of venom directed at him by the opposition party. It's awfully hard to serve effectively when that is the case. The Republicans have never given him a chance. Never. They have never negotiated with him or treated him with any respect at all. They have hated him from the second he got into office. This is the political climate in our country. I suspect that when a Republican gains the presidency, Democrats will do a similar thing. One of the parties is going to have to step up and start working with the other.

    1. 84
      Education Answerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Democrats love to claim that the POTUS has had an unprecedented level of criticism leveled at him from republicans.  In reality, it's just politics as usual.  Being the president is difficult, President Obama has failed in his position, and democrats are looking for excuses. 

      Every time we turn around, democrats are claiming that the opposition in Congress is making things difficult.  Yeah, that's what the opposition does; it's what the opposition has always done.  Plenty of examples can support this reality.  The difference is that President Obama isn't able to sway the opposition like previous presidents.  Democrats like to say that the republicans aren't compromising.  The reality is that our leader isn't leading, and consequently, he hasn't been able to sway republicans to vote as he would wish.  This is a leadership issue, not an issue of obstinacy.

      Every time we turn around, democrats are claiming that the opposition has been too critical of President Obama.  Yeah, they weren't critical of George Bush, not at all.  Didn't Keith Olberman call Bush a fascist and a murderer?  That's not harsh, not at all.  Do you remember when so many democrats said that Bush wasn't their president?  Plenty of harsh examples exist.

      Every time we turn around, democrats are claiming that the opposition has been concocting phony scandals.  Google "George Bush scandals," and you'll find at least twenty different "scandals" that the democrats pounced on during Bush's presidency.  Give me a break.  If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.  Either way, Obama supporters need to stop making excuses.

      1. gmwilliams profile image86
        gmwilliamsposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Great responses ALL, continue the discussion.

      2. gmwilliams profile image86
        gmwilliamsposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        +1,000,000,000,000,000,000-they had better WAKE UP and realize that President Obama has not been the best representative for Democrats and Liberals.  He is a trainwreck in progress.  Smart Democrats and Liberals, like me, are gradually distancing themselves from Obama because of his extreme and unworkable policies.

    2. 0
      Brenda Durhamposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      I totally disagree.
      Obama was easily recognizeable as a pusher of policy failure early on,   so kudos to O'Reilly AND to even little peons like me who could recognize it.   Anyone should be able to recognize it.   
      This isn't a failure of the Parties to work together!   It's a failure of the Democrat Party to have ever let a Leftist into their Party and a foolishly mean politically-motivated decision to nominate him for the Presidency.    Everyone on both sides are stuck in one way or another simply because of one thing---------the color of the man's skin!    Seriously.     Everyone who could've made a difference has been way too nervous to oppose him because he's black.    What a crock of fools we have in this Country,  to be held hostage basically because of someone's skin color.

      Me personally,  I agree I didn't give Obama much of a chance.   But indeed, any person who stands up in public and says if his daughters were to make a mistake, he wouldn't want them punished with a baby......doesn't warrant a chance, because he's so obviously foolish and lacking in common integrity, not to mention so starkly lacking in Constitutional knowledge.

      This Nation, and the Office of the Presidency,  isn't something to experiment with.   It's something that should be maintained, its Constitution upheld, defended from enemies both foreign and domestic, and should never be lent to such a wavering hand and unstable mentality.

      1. Zelkiiro profile image84
        Zelkiiroposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Just when I thought you'd posted the stupidest thing I've ever seen on the HP forums, you go and top yourself, just to prove that it could, indeed, be done. It's completely obvious the Republicans are being obstructionists, and it's completely obvious that Obama (the alleged Leftist) has done more to benefit the country than Bush (the completely obvious Rightist) ever has. Nothing in your post contains any amount of truth, but the quoted portion is perhaps some of the most heinously inane drivel I've ever laid eyes on.

        http://i287.photobucket.com/albums/ll145/Zelkiiro/Forum%20Junk/StopPosting.gif

        1. 84
          Education Answerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          With all due respect, your post is total opinion.

          Both parties are obstructionists.  All of Washington is an obstructionist. 

          To claim that republicans are treating the POTUS any differently than democrats treated Bush is absurd.  The POTUS is more liberal than Bush was conservative.  Of course republicans are going to try to stop his liberal agenda.  That's how politics are played and have been played for many, many years.  Both sides play the same game.

        2. 0
          Brenda Durhamposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          I just now saw this.
          Wow.
          I had been under the impression that you had a fair amount of manners.   But then, I'm tolerant that way, to give someone the benefit of the doubt.   But hey you just cut down on the chances of that.

      2. Quilligrapher profile image91
        Quilligrapherposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Best wishes, Ms. Durham. How are you doing these days?

        I thought this might be a good time to remind folks that President Obama might not be President today if the Republican Party had not "foolishly nominated" an insensitive candidate who believed …

        “I'm not concerned about the very poor.”

        “47 percent who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you-name-it. ... My job is not to worry about those people”

        “I like being able to fire people who provide services to me.”

        "I believe in an America where millions of Americans believe in an America that's the America millions of Americans believe in."

        “I went to a number of women's groups and said 'Can you help us find folks?' and they brought us whole binders full of women.”

        "As president, I will create 12 million new jobs." —Mitt Romney, during the second presidential debate…
        "Government does not create jobs. Government does not create jobs." —Mitt Romney, 45 minutes later (Oct. 16, 2012.

        “But he [Mitt Romney’s father] was born in Mexico... and had he been born of, uh, Mexican parents, I'd have a better shot at winning this. But he was unfortunately born to Americans living in Mexico.”

        “Corporations are people, my friend ... of course they are. Everything corporations earn ultimately goes to the people.”

        “and you can't find any oxygen from outside the aircraft to get in the aircraft, because the windows don't open” {1}
        roll
        http://s2.hubimg.com/u/6919429.jpg
        {1} http://politicalhumor.about.com/od/mitt … Quotes.htm

        1. 84
          Education Answerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          You're probably right about the fact that many people voted for President Obama as a way of voting against Mr. Romney.  I'm sure Brenda is right about the fact that many people voted for President Obama based on skin color; I'm sure that many people voted for Mr. Romney based on skin color too.  To be elected because you are the lesser of two evils, because you have a certain skin color, or because you have written enough checks to garner votes isn't ideal by any means.

          1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
            Kathryn L Hillposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            It is a matter of culture, not skin color.

        2. 61
          retief2000posted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Mitt Romney's loss was likely due to 3 million Republican voters who sat on their franchises rather than vote.  Their motivations were varied but some have sited Romneycare, his religion, his willingness to flip and flop like a Democrat, etc....

          As for "Government creating jobs" - it does not - it reallocates jobs.

          As for "corporations are people" - they are indeed, I have worked for a couple and have never seen anything other than people in a corporation whether they be officer, executives, managers, supervisors, customers, vendors, etc...all people and all benefit from corporation as a business model and structure.   In fact, so valuable is the corporation as a model it is emulated by the USPS, NPR, PBS, Fanny Mae, Freddie Mac, etc....

          Perhaps it is ignorance on the part of the public, at least in some of these instances, rather than what was said, which is to blame.  After all most Americans are educated by the PEOPLE in school CORPORATIONS.

          1. Zelkiiro profile image84
            Zelkiiroposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Funny. I didn't know Walmart was a person...

            Also, this is relevant and hilarious.

            1. 0
              mbuggiehposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              You can make flip comments and think you are funny, but Romney was right.

              Corporations are the people who populate and depend on them.

              Was Romney's wording problematic? Of course, as it opened him up to ridicule particularly form those who think society is an entity that exists without people or that systems of any kind are entities that exist without people.

              Corporations are the millions of Americans who work for them---at eveyr level, and whose wages and salaries, retirement incomes, pensions, insurance coverage, etc. is inextricably tied to them and to their successes and failures.

            2. 61
              retief2000posted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Walmart is populated with thousands of people - but that point is wasted on a product of corporate education.

          2. Cody Hodge5 profile image83
            Cody Hodge5posted 3 years ago in reply to this

            So is that why corporations are separate entities from their owners under the tax code?

            Lemme know when you go grab a beer with your corporation....

            1. 0
              mbuggiehposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              For the purposes of taxation and accounting, corporations are entities.

              For the purposes of political culture corporations are entities comprised of people.

              Whether we like it or not, our legal and taxation systems grant corporations the status of "entity" as separate from their owners.

              1. Cody Hodge5 profile image83
                Cody Hodge5posted 3 years ago in reply to this

                I'll give you an A for effort on that one smile

                1. 0
                  mbuggiehposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  Thanks...wink

            2. 61
              retief2000posted 3 years ago in reply to this

              So it is your belief that the tax code defines what is a person?  Interesting.  That may further complicate the abortion debate.

              It appears obvious that your corporate education was incomplete.  Perhaps you should sue your incompetent English teachers for not helping you understand "the metaphor," a commonly used literary device.

              Leftists like to think of themselves as well educated but it is obvious that they have trouble with simple things like metaphors.

              1. Cody Hodge5 profile image83
                Cody Hodge5posted 3 years ago in reply to this

                I think....

                I think its trying to communicate...

              2. 0
                mbuggiehposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Is it possible for you (retief2000) to comment without insulting someone; without resorting to the worn-out "you don't agree with me so you are stupid and/or uneducated" crap?

                Is it possible for you to comment without slamming people who may achieved some level of higher education or whose politics may be left of center?

                Or do you perceive personal insults as empowering?

                1. 61
                  retief2000posted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  The foolish complaint is about the use of a metaphor, "corporations are people."  One who is incapable of understanding the use of metaphors in English is one of three things.  One, unfamiliar with English and its uses - clearly this is not the case since we are communicating, more or less, effectively in English.  Two, poorly educated - in a nation that readily dispenses free educations from a presumably competent education system, this is inexcusable (unless some real language disability exists - see point one.)  And finally, one chooses to ignore the meaning of metaphor because that employed metaphor is inconveniently accurate.

                  Do you require a tissue?

                  1. 0
                    mbuggiehposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    No actually. I am splitting my sides with laughter...wink

                  2. Cody Hodge5 profile image83
                    Cody Hodge5posted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    So you're saying that Mitt Romney was merely using a metaphor when he said that corporations are people?

      3. 0
        mbuggiehposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        I think President Obama is a great disappointment to many of his constituents.

        And presidents who are disappointments tend not to far well during their tenures in office or in history.

    3. bBerean profile image61
      bBereanposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      If his success was contingent on having 100% of the media serving and praising him, he is indeed a failure.  Most of it has been in his camp from the beginning.  Blaming his dismal performance on those brave and wise few who opposed him is ludicrous.

    4. 61
      retief2000posted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Selected not elected preceded GWB's inauguration, endless venom spewed at GWB.  I never realized how prescient O'Reilly was about Obama policies.

    5. 0
      mbuggiehposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Exactly. A couple of things to remember:

      (1) In American politics---what goes around, comes around. Presuming that a Republican is elected president in the future (perhaps) 2016, a caution to GOP and Tea Party supporters as to what the Democrats will do and how they will conduct themselves. In the words of Al Jolson: "You ain't seen nothing yet."

      (2)  After the death of FDR---who was elected to an unprecedented 4 terms, the Republicans quickly pushed through the 22nd Amendment which limits presidential terms. And then, Eisenhower was elected---a man who could have easily served many terms in the White House  and then Ronald Reagan who even more easily could have remained in the White House for many terms. In fact in 1985 (after Reagan was elected for his second term) Republicans attempted to repeal the amendment. It failed.

      (3) And finally, determinations of the success or failure of a presidency are not made before it is over. In fact, determinations of the success or failure of a presidency can only be made when there is time and distance from the presidency. And, determinations of presidential successes and failures are not absolute and not permanent. Presidents are often rethought and reconsidered as time and distance separates public opinion from their presidencies. Presidents once considered successes are now considered failed; presidents considered failed now considered successful.

      Then again, none of this matters because since I do not agree with the trending opinion in this forum I am, by default, uninformed and incapable of cogent thought.

  3. Alphadogg16 profile image89
    Alphadogg16posted 3 years ago

    ^^^^^^^ Now that is hilarious.....and true at the same time.....Thumbs up Zelkiiro.

    1. 0
      Brenda Durhamposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Ditto what I said to Zelkiiro to you too, "Alphadogg16".

      1. Alphadogg16 profile image89
        Alphadogg16posted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Brenda you are so biased in everything you say, you have a problem with gays, blacks or anyone who doesn't agree with your logic. The color of Obamas skin is irrelevant, at least in my eyes. I wouldn't call his Presidency a success, but it is difficult to fix something that was a mess before you even got it. Your constantly criticizing Obama, but he's done no worse than Bush. It doesn't really matter whether a Republican or Democrat is in office, if the two parties constantly fight each other, things will never get better.

        1. 0
          Brenda Durhamposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          From both of the posts of yours that I've read, including this one,  you have no good reason to accuse anyone else including me of being biased!  LOL.    Re-read your own posts.    Take special note of the fact that you're joining in with Zelkiiro in making this a personal thing instead of actually focusing on the Parties and parties involved who are public servants and therefore should lend themselves to scrutiny.   And extra special note of the fact that you laughed when someone posted an immature, horribly lacking in basic manners post personally attacking me.   Apparently you have no good excuse to say about that, huh?   No wonder, because your reasoning for it is invalid, period.    So run along now like the immature person you've illustrated and talk to someone who'll put up with your nonsensical rhetoric, okey-dokey?   Because I do prefer you not engage me in anymore conversation for a loooonnng while (maybe after you've aged some and gained a bit of wisdom).......got it?

          1. Alphadogg16 profile image89
            Alphadogg16posted 3 years ago in reply to this

            You obviously have some sort of self esteem issue......Nothing was directed towards you..........I was laughing at the picture Zelkiiro posted...it was funny......and the "true and agreement part" was to what he said about Obama doing more for the country than Bush. I was unaware who he was even talking too until you opened your mouth.

            1. Seth Winter profile image83
              Seth Winterposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Way to go Alpadogg prove Brenda right by starting off your post insulting her with a low self esteem crack.

  4. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
    Kathryn L Hillposted 3 years ago

    (Warning: Tissues required.)

    Thomas Jefferson:

    "The whole art of government consists in the art of being honest."

    "The will of the majority must always prevail."

    "The general (federal) government will tend to monarchy, which will fortify itself from day to day instead of working for its cures."

    "What country can preserve its liberties, if their rulers are not warned from time to time..."

    "It is the manners and the spirit of the people which preserves a republic in vigor. A degeneracy in these (manners and spirit of the people) is a canker which soon eats the heart of its laws and constitution."

  5. aliasis profile image94
    aliasisposted 3 years ago

    I think he's done a lot of great stuff, that either his haters don't like to acknowledge or insist on disagreeing with anyway. On the other hand, I've been disappointed to find he's not as liberal as he claimed to be - or years in presidency have mellowed out all the talk about values and idealism. I'm extremely disappointed with, for example, how he's handled Private Manning's case, as well as Edward Snowden's. Not to mention insisting on the war with Syria without looking at alternatives.

    The things he hasn't accomplished yet, I don't think we can blame totally - after all, when Republicans veto everything and spend all our tax money trying to stop Obamacare (which, I think, is totally great that finally we're looking at ways to insure the poor) and gay marriage.

    I do think he could be the greatest guy ever and Republicans would still find a way to hate him, though, and pretend he's the worst president in our country's history. Granted, Democrats would do the same thing, though let's be real, Bush really was a horrible President. The two party system is destined to fail because people identify with the party more than issues a lot of the time (and I think that's true of many Democrats as well). I wonder if we'd fair better under a Parliament system.

    Anyway, Obama's not perfect. I wish he was better in a lot of ways. But overall, I think he's done an all right job - or at least better than the alternative. I'm hoping for Clinton 2016.

    1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
      Kathryn L Hillposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Because she is not of the republican culture.

      1. 0
        mbuggiehposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        What exactly is "Republican culture"?

        Is there a unified and national Republican Party in the US today?

        1. 61
          retief2000posted 3 years ago in reply to this

          There was a time when republican was a word of praise used to signify those who believed in freely elected representative government.  That ended when the considerably inferior "democrat" was used by people like the racist Woodrow Wilson.

          1. 0
            mbuggiehposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            With all due respect, your definition suggests that Republicans hold exclusive claim to a belief in a democratically elected government and that Democrats are racists. That is nonsense and I am confident that you know that and are just seeking to bait people into a Party X is superior/Party Y is inferior debate which in and of itself is meaningless and sophomoric.

            If one uses the lower-case term "republican" then one subscribes to a republican or representative form of government. If one uses the lower-case "democrat" then one refers to a government in which the people (or those defined as "the people) engage in free elections to either decide issues or elect representatives.

            So, are you referring to "republican culture" as the political culture of the US that evolved after the ratification of the Constitution OR are you referring to "Republican culture" meaning more conservative political and ideological views?

            As for the use of the terms Republican and Democrat to connote party affiliation, some history:

            Lincoln was the first president elected under the Republican Party ticket.

            Franklin Pierce was the first president elected under what we can define as the modern Democratic Party ticket.

            1. 61
              retief2000posted 3 years ago in reply to this

              "Republicans hold exclusive claim to a belief in a democratically elected government" - republican, not the obviously misused "Republican" - republican is a political idea.  You missed the point.

              "and that Democrats are racists" - no I said quite plainly that Woodrow Wilson was a racist, he was.

              "democracy" - is an inferior term because it is used inaccurately and confused with elected.  Democracy is a system of direct election and the confusion began in the early 20th century with people like the RACIST Woodrow Wilson.

              To be fair, the RACIST Andrew Jackson was a republican as was Thomas Jefferson.  (NOTE THE LOWER CASE "r")

              1. 0
                mbuggiehposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                A term is not in and of itself "inferior" because its definition evolves and/or has multiple meanings and applications OR because the use of a term does not meet your standard for use.

                1. 61
                  retief2000posted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  Democrat is an inferior term because it is corrupted by misuse.

                  1. 0
                    mbuggiehposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    Words do not become "inferior" when misused. That said, define "inferior". Define "misused".

  6. Sychophantastic profile image84
    Sychophantasticposted 3 years ago

    Brenda, why don't you define "Leftist" for us. I don't think you know what it means. Obama is hardly a Leftist. He's left compared to the politicians you like, but that doesn't make him a Leftist.

    1. 84
      Education Answerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Name the last president who was just as liberal.  Carter?  LBJ?  He's clearly left of center.  What do you want to call that?

      1. Zelkiiro profile image84
        Zelkiiroposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        The last president we've ever had who was left of center would probably be FDR.

        1. 84
          Education Answerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          You're joking, right?  LBJ was as liberal as they come.  Carter was no centrist.  Obama is easily as liberal as LBJ, even more.  Yes, FDR was certainly on the left.

          1. 0
            mbuggiehposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Lyndon Johnson was a complicated man with a complicated political sensibility. To suggest that he was a garden-variety liberal is to misunderstand him and his politics. Johnson was certainly progressive in terms of some social issues, but was decidedly conservative in issues related to what we would today call international politics and national security. That said, Johnson was not driven by ideology, but by politics.

            As for Carter, again while less complicated than Johnson, is a mix of right-wing and left-wing positions---each more ideologically than politically  driven, but each complex making him not easily definable as a liberal.

            As for President Obama, again, he is a mix of left-wing and right-wing positions, but it is difficult to discern if these positions are ideologically or politically driven. Only time---distance from his presidency and serious historical and political scholarship will tell.

          2. 0
            mbuggiehposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Very little about the political orientations of American presidents is on/off or right/left. Presidential history shows us that most American presidents---if not all, are complex amalgams of politics and ideology.

        2. 0
          mbuggiehposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          And as a historian, I agree. The last president definitively at the left-of-center mark was Franklin Roosevelt, but even he is not as "liberal" as his reputation (most of it which hinges on the New Deal) suggests.

          Remember, it was FDR whose reactionary response to national security concerns resulted in the internment of Japanese-Americans.

          1. innersmiff profile image80
            innersmiffposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            That constantly needs to be brought up in conversations about FDR. He was no hero.

    2. 61
      retief2000posted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Obama is indeed a leftist in that his political and economic beliefs are rooted in the notion that collectivism is superior to individualism, government is the best answer to every problem, that private property must be limited, that any old idea is a bad idea and  that the best ideas come from turning established institutions inside out and upside down.  He fancies himself a man of the left and has always surrounded himself with leftists.  Read his  autobiographies and his speeches, he consistently speaks in the language of the left.

  7. aware profile image70
    awareposted 3 years ago

    leading isn't a easy job. most fall short at the task. Obama is one man. to blame one man for the way things are. or to expect one man to fix  everything that is wrong . is naive. just taking the job says something about a man. people that don't care about their country don't run for president .i did not vote for him the first time . but i did the second. why? he impressed me as a man who was gona try like hell to do what he thought was best for our nation. he wont go down as the best. but he certainly wont be the worst either. endeavor to persevere. he might fail but he sure as hell is going to try to succeed.

    1. 0
      Brenda Durhamposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Good God!    You mean you think there's gonna be someone who's a worse President than him?    I shudder to think so.   I'm gonna try to think positively and hope there's never ever again anyone as bad as him.

      1. Zelkiiro profile image84
        Zelkiiroposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        We already have had a few:
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical … ey_results

        Notable worse presidents include Warren Harding, James Buchanan, Millard Fillmore, Ulysses Grant, John Tyler, and good ol' George W. Bush.

        1. 0
          mbuggiehposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          And don't forget Martin van Buren...wink

          1. 84
            Education Answerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Notably missing:

            Jimmy Carter

        2. innersmiff profile image80
          innersmiffposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          I like how the widely considered 'best' Presidents are the biggest socialist war-mongers, (FDR, Lincoln) and the 'worst' are the ones that largely left people alone, (Tyler, Van Buren), with the exception of George Bush. People most hate him cuz he's stupid.

          1. 0
            mbuggiehposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Do you really think that Lincoln was a "socialist warmonger"? Do you have any knowledge whatsoever of the Lincoln Presidency or the American Civil War?

            If yes, explain your position with historical and documentary evidence and fact.

            And do you really think that FDR was a "warmonger"?

            Again: If yes, explain your position with historical and documentary evidence and fact.

            And "most people" do not "hate" George W. Bush in the US. In fact, his current favorable ratings are quite high.

            If you knew a little American history, you would understand why presidents such as Tyler and Van Buren (and the others people have listed here) are ranked among the worst of American presidents. And, it has NOTHING to do with whether or not they "left the people alone".

            1. 61
              retief2000posted 3 years ago in reply to this

              There are legitimate questions about Lincoln's positions on Habeas Corpus and Press Freedom that suggest Lincoln did over reach.  The Civil War was hardly Lincoln's fault as it had been building since the Constitution was ratified.

              As for FDR, he is our worst President despite what liberal academics and the ill informed who lived through the Great Depression and WWII may think.  The Great Depression was a direct consequence of FDR's policies which deepened and lengthened what should have been a recession - much as we are currently experiencing.  WWII was a series of diplomatic missteps regarding America's relationship with Japan that pushed it into the arms of Hitler and Mussolini.

              FDR was hostile to free market economics, much like the  current White House occupant.  He was easily swayed by the powerful China lobby in Washington.  He created the most damaging social program this country ever enacted, because it roped Americans into dependence, Social Security.

              Obama is well on his way to eclipsing these "accomplishments" with his massive and haphazard spending policies, stumbling and bumbling foreign policy and his cyclopean, Brobdingnagian, byzantine charlie foxtrot - Obamacare.

              1. 0
                mbuggiehposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                You are kidding, right, when you claim: "Great Depression was a direct consequence of FDR's policies which deepened and lengthened what should have been a recession..."

                A more nuanced and informed analysis of FDR might suggest that his New Deal programs---since they did not deal with the collapse of the dollar and with the collapse of the market effectively, contributed to deepening of the Depression in some sectors of the market.

                That said, why do you and so many others assume that it is "liberal academics" who rate FDR as among the greatest of presidents? In a sampling of a group of historians---among which are conservatives, liberals, moderates, and many other flavors, the following presidents are well-ranked.

                Rankings by Liberals (left column) and Conservatives (right column)

                TOP PRESIDENTS

                1    Abraham Lincoln                  Abraham Lincoln
                2    Franklin D. Roosevelt          George Washington
                3    George Washington          Franklin D. Roosevelt
                4    Thomas Jefferson          Thomas Jefferson
                5    Theodore Roosevelt           Theodore Roosevelt
                6    Woodrow Wilson                   Andrew Jackson
                7    Andrew Jackson                   Harry  S Truman
                8    Harry S Truman                   Woodrow Wilson
                9    Lyndon B. Johnson           Dwight D. Eisenhower
                10    John Adams                           John Adams


                There is really little difference in this list. And, if this polling were to be done today, Dwight Eisenhower would also make the "liberal" list. His presidency is currently being favorably reviewed by liberal historians and moderate historians.

            2. innersmiff profile image80
              innersmiffposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Here's an alternative list compiled by Ivan Eland in 'Revarving Rushmore'
              "This survey is based on the principles of who maintained peace and prosperity and didn’t usurp individual freedom. Eland lets the chips fall where they may in “Recarving Rushmore”. Other historians should be so honest."
              http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2461055/posts

              1 John Tyler

              2 Grover Cleveland

              3 Martin van Buren

              4 Rutherford B. Hayes

              5 Chester A Artur

              This isn't the sexiest list of all time - for some reason the "best" Presidents need to have a war to be remembered. Lincoln has the civil war (when really he held no value judgment on slavery, and only wanted to expand the federal government), FDR as the second world war (let's just ignore the Japanese-American internment camps, shall we?), Woodrow Wilson had the First World War (the overt racist actually had a hand in manufacturing that war too). The 'recarving rushmore' guys, on the other hand, a lot of people have probably never heard of. But why not? Because they don't have any of the above dubiously named 'achievements'?

              1. 0
                mbuggiehposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Equating a successful presidency with no wars and/or international conflicts is most problematic.

                John Tyler as a supporter of slavery who actually was elected to the Congress of the Confederate States of America. His presidency is best-defined by the nickname by which he is know: "His Accidency". Tyler was also an advocate of using the military to suppress domestic political dissent and went as far as to send troops to the state of Rhode Island when some of its residents sought constitutional reform.

                Grover Cleveland was sympathetic to the post-Civil War South and refused to enforce the 15th Amendment which protected the voting rights of African American men; sent thousands of Native Americans---against their will, to reservations; campaigned against the Force Bill which was designed to extend and secure voting rights; broadly interpreted the Monroe Doctrine and interpreted it to include Europe, and he refused to allow Utah to be admitted to the US because he believed it was a largely Democratic State.

                Martin van Buren's presidency was marked by the near-economic collapse of the United States including the Panic of 1837 which resulted in a 5-year depression.

                Are you aware of the history of Hayes' election? He lost the popular vote and failed to reach the electoral vote margin needed to win a presidential election. The election was thrown to Congress (as required by the Constitution) and Congress awarded him the needed electoral votes after he promised Southern Democrats to, essentially, end the post-Civil War reconstruction of the South.  In addition, he firmly enforced the Monroe Doctrine, for example, sending the American Army into Mexico to control Mexican domestic social and political issues. And if this was not enough, he forced the assimilation of Native Americans into white culture.

                And Chester Arthur, like his predecessors, caved in to Southern Democrats and failed to ensure the constitutional rights of African Americans; appropriated Indian lands and sold it to local whites, and he was a supporter of the spoils system in government.

          2. 84
            Education Answerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Yeah, he only holds two degrees, one from Harvard and another from Yale.

            1. 0
              mbuggiehposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              And, he was not a bad student either. No worse than most students.

              1. Zelkiiro profile image84
                Zelkiiroposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Just because his Intellect score is high doesn't necessarily imply a high Wisdom score (which was likely his dump stat). He probably left Charisma at 10, as well.

                1. 0
                  mbuggiehposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  Let me say this: Most people don't make it through graduate school---particularly MBA programs without a lot going for them.

                  Being inarticulate is not a marker of lack of intellect or lack of "wisdom".

                  1. Zelkiiro profile image84
                    Zelkiiroposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    But it does indicate a lack of Charisma. :V

                  2. 61
                    retief2000posted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    He wasn't particularly inarticulate when in a comfortable situation while speaking extemporaneously.  Remember the scene on the rubble with the firefighters, "I can hear you and soon the people who knocked these buildings down will hear from all of us."  Not bad.  It is in reading the teleprompter that he fell flat.  I am not so impressed with Obama's vaunted speaking skills. Having graded speakers I would not give him more than a B+ for his very best moments.  Reagan was a much better speaker.

                2. 84
                  Education Answerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  Bush's charisma far exceeded Obama's.  He was able to work with opposition.  Can you say the same of Obama?

                  1. Zelkiiro profile image84
                    Zelkiiroposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    Is that a problem with Obama's charisma, or is it a problem with obstructionist politics being the dominant Republican tactic since the man took office?

              2. 61
                retief2000posted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Stop making fair statements you're going to undo my assumptions about you.

              3. 84
                Education Answerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                He was a C+ student at a premier school, but remember that he did this before the grade inflation we see today.  Back when Bush was at Yale, fewer people received an A or even a B.  The July/August 2013 Yale Alumni Magazine points out that “Sixty-two percent of all grades awarded by Yale College in the spring of 2012 were a As or A- minuses. Comparing that with 50 years ago, when only ten percent were in the A range, some faculty believe Yale has a grade-inflation problem.”

                A C+ at Yale, in 1968, would have been a respectable, decent grade.  It certainly wouldn't have been top of the class, but it would have been solid.  Today, a C+ would be scoffed at, but then again, a B would be scoffed at now; the majority of Yale students earn an A now.  The reason for this is likely grade inflation, so yes, Bush did, in fact, do fairly well at Yale.

                1. Zelkiiro profile image84
                  Zelkiiroposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  I doubt that's the case. It's more likely that, as more kids have access to high-end universities, Yale can afford to cherry-pick only the best students, and the result is a higher average grade than when attendance was lower.

                  1. 84
                    Education Answerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    They were able to pick students in 1968 too; Yale was a premier school then too.  Don't take my word for it.  Do a little research, and you'll find that Yale professors are raising concerns about grade inflation.

                    One of the problems with your hypothesis is that many, if not most,  colleges have a grade-inflation problem, and most of them are not premier colleges. Have all of these colleges become more adept at picking the best?  Nope.  Colleges are giving better grades, and I don't believe that's because our schools are putting out a better product than they did fifty years ago.  Grade inflation is common practice now and has been for decades.

  8. Sychophantastic profile image84
    Sychophantasticposted 3 years ago

    The idea that the POTUS should be negotiating over a constitutionally passed law is absurd. The GOP has been trying to overturn Obamacare since it was originally passed. It was then upheld by the Supreme Court. The GOP is actively attempting to undermine the democratic, constitutional process. Hmmm, sounds similar to what terrorists want to do. Not only that, Obamacare is essentially the same law that was instituted in Massachusetts by Mitt Romney and that whole healthcare idea was culled from a conservative think tank which was a reaction to Hillary Clinton's health care initiative during the Clinton adminstration. Obamacare is a conservative plan - the idea of health care exchanges is a conservative idea.

    1. PrettyPanther profile image86
      PrettyPantherposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Exactly.  It was a plan crafted by conservatives back when conservatives participated in governing and used their heads instead of their guts.

      Yes, I'm generalizing.

    2. 0
      Brenda Durhamposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Eh, get a grip on facts before you compare the GOP's tactics to terrorism.
      Especially since the Democrat Party would be more feasibly applied that way,  if people were to want to apply it that way.
      Terrorists KILL PEOPLE, usually at random.
      The GOP has been doing what MOST of the people of this Nation wanted done.    Just because everyone ends up being afraid to outright oppose Obama isn't anyone's fault but his, really.   He LIKES the fact that people are afraid of him.  He has several cards he keeps pulling out from that stacked deck he was elected on.

    3. 61
      retief2000posted 3 years ago in reply to this

      "The idea that the POTUS should be negotiating over a constitutionally passed law is absurd."

      Laws are overturned all the time and have been since the founding of the country.  No Congress is bound by the action of the previous Congress.

      The current shut down is not over undoing Obamacare but over delaying its launch by one year.  Obama is saying no, despite himself, without legal authority, delaying key aspects of the law.  Also despite his political allies and Congress getting sweet deals to excuse them from or reduce the costs of Obamacare.

      As for Romneycare, that was one small state not the entire country.  It did not emerge from the Massachusetts legislature in the same form as the original bill.  It is one of the major reasons Romney could not motivate conservative voters as he could not distance himself from an increasingly problematic system in the Bay State.

      As for the often repeated terrorist crack, where are the bombvests?

      1. Sychophantastic profile image84
        Sychophantasticposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Well, if you don't even understand the definition of "terrorism" there's not much point having a discussion. Terrorism isn't defined by murder necessarily. It's defined by fear.

        To assert that the current shutdown is not over undoing Obamacare when virtually everyone on the Right has said that's their goal is ridiculous and disingenuous.

        Maybe the GOP should opt for a government shutdown over abortion next? Unless Obama negotiates on new abortion restrictions, the government will shut down. Bottom line, the GOP can't get their way through democratic means and are opting for non-democratic means. If they don't respect the system, at the very least, then they should be ignored.

        1. 61
          retief2000posted 3 years ago in reply to this

          These are indeed "democratic" means.  The majority in the House of Representatives were elected by democratic means.  They passed a continuing resolution by democratic means.  The continuing resolution says nothing at all about shutting down Obamacare.  So why the objection, except to be objectionable since the President, himself, has delayed the full implementation of Obamacare. 

          Fear of what.  I can think of few things more reassuring than a government shut down.  My liberty has rarely been so secure.  "Terrorism" is just another scoundrels retreat.

          Since government shut downs are terrorism, undemocratic and disrespectful of the "system" than the multiple government shut downs engineered by Democrats must also be reprehensible.  I guess no one has a monopoly on virtue or the lack there of.

          1. Sychophantastic profile image84
            Sychophantasticposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Texas Congressman Randy Nuegbauer said yesterday that he will keep government shut down for as long as it takes to keep Obamacare from being funded because it is the will of the American people.

            Incidentally, he said this just a day before blaming a park ranger for denying veterans access to a government facility closed due to the shutdown.

            1. gmwilliams profile image86
              gmwilliamsposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Mr. Nuegbauer is on the RIGHT TRACK regarding Obamacare.   I really cannot fathom why some people are for this health disaster in the making.  I am for what Mr. Nuegbauer is doing and for defunding of Obamacare!

            2. 61
              retief2000posted 3 years ago in reply to this

              The Obama shutdown, given that the House sent a continuing resolution bill over to the Senate for a vote that would have fully funded government and Obamacare, but would have required that Obamacare cover everyone removing the subsidies and exemptions from unions, businesses and Congress, itself.  Obama said he would veto the bill and Democrats in the Senate defeated the bill.

              So now we have children with cancer denied their treatments and aged veterans denied access to an OPEN AIR monument intended to honor them, the owners.

              1. Sychophantastic profile image84
                Sychophantasticposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                The Obama shutdown? That's hysterical. The Tea Party has been talking about how shutting down government would be a victory for them ever since they were elected. It's literally been a component of their campaigns. So please, provide more comedy fodder.

                1. Sychophantastic profile image84
                  Sychophantasticposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  I don't know why the Tea Party and the GOP just don't take ownership of this thing and tout it as their big accomplishment. After all, they haven't passed any legislation or done anything else. They are anti-government everything, so this is quite an accomplishment. They basically want government to stop functioning.

                2. 0
                  mbuggiehposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  Exactly. The Tea Party movement, while most of its members probably do not know it or grasp it, is a modern anarchist movement; an right-wing anarchist movement wrapped in libertarian clothing and devoted to the deconstruction the democratic-republican government of the United States, and eventually, the American way of life and the republic itself.

                  1. Cody Hodge5 profile image83
                    Cody Hodge5posted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    As usual, I think the truth is somewhere in the middle..

                    While I agree that the Tea Party is extreme, I don't think that they want to necessarily ruin America. That's certainly where they are going if they keep pursuing their policies, but I don't know if that's the goal.

                    Unfortunately, they are getting in the way of reasonable people on both sides of the aisle who realize how crazy this whole mess has gotten.

                  2. 61
                    AnalogousMethodposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    I would estimate that less than 1% of self-proclaimed tea-partyers and libertarians are actually anarchist. I rarely, rarely talk to anybody who supports anarchy.

                    Yes, any minarchist movement is going to be 'devoted' to the deconstruction of most of the government, that's pretty much the definition. However, you can't extend that to the American way of life and the Republic itself by any means.

                  3. 61
                    retief2000posted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    Wow, overstate and over simplify much?

                3. 84
                  Education Answerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  Boehner isn't a member of the Tea Party.  You're putting a lot of blame on a small segment of the Republican party, one that has been largely ostracized by the Republican establishment and one that doesn't have the clout to do what you credit them with doing.

                4. 61
                  retief2000posted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  The TEA party, who are they?  I thought they were as dead as Bin Laden.  I have yet to see a (T) after any elected officials name.  Are they a national party like the Green or Constitution or Libertarian Parties?  Where is their headquarters?  Or are they the current "THEY" that lefties can belly ache about?

                  I must be under the mistaken impression that we are talking about actual events and actual bills passed or bypassed in Congress, presently, resulting in the Obama Shutdown. 

                  It is okay, without a strong fantasy life and emotional reactions lefties would have nothing to say.

                  1. 84
                    Education Answerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    Yes, George Bush used to be the scapegoat for Democrats.  That trend seems to have subsided a bit, and now we have a new scapegoat, the Tea Party.  According to many Democrats, the Tea Party is responsible for every bad thing, from soggy cornflakes to genocide.

              2. Cody Hodge5 profile image83
                Cody Hodge5posted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Those are outstanding talking points...

                BTW....you should do a little research as to why unions are opposed to Obamacare and why Congress is "exempt" from the law.

                Its fascinating how much sense it actually makes when you take the time to overcome the talking points

                1. 0
                  mbuggiehposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  Who cares if unions support the Affordable Care Act or not?

                  Unions don't even support the best interests of their members.

                  As for the Congressional exemption: It is a myth. And, in fact, POLITICO (that first spread this story) no longer stands behind its own story.

                  In fact, the only "exemption" for Congress is that they do not need to complete new paperwork in order to have their current coverage transferred to "Obamacare".

                  1. 84
                    Education Answerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    There is also favorable funding for members of Congress.  They will be afforded a better deal than you and I will receive.

                2. 0
                  mbuggiehposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  I know...the unions claim employers will reduce the number of hours people work so that they are no longer full-time and therefore no longer qualify for insurance as a perquisite of employment.

                  What the unions are really worried about is NOT the employment and/or wages and benefits of their members. The unions are worried that the Affordable Care Act could hurt them---deflate some of their power in the marketplace as people find that the free market is able to do a better job for workers than unions.

                  Disney just decided to upgrade hundreds of part-time employees to full-time status so that they could qualify for insurance under the Affordable Care Act.

                3. 61
                  retief2000posted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  The unions were four square for Obamacare when it meant a political victory for their man.  Now that it represents an impending cost, to their power, their prosperity and to their member's pockets they are against it despite ample evidence at the time it passed that Obamacare would be a disaster.

                  Why not explain why Congress and their staffs are exempt from a law all the rest of America, except Obama allies, must obey?

 
working