jump to last post 1-5 of 5 discussions (73 posts)

Name the ways that America is worse under President Obama? President

  1. gmwilliams profile image86
    gmwilliamsposted 2 years ago

    http://s1.hubimg.com/u/8874870_f520.jpg
    Obama indicated in his promissory speeches that he would improve America?  However, he has done nothing of the kind, in fact, he has made America much worse since his takeover in the White House. Do you think that America has become worse under President Obama?  The main crux of Obama's presidency is the albatross, Obama"care" which will eventually bankrupt America.

    1. janesix profile image60
      janesixposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      He has improved my libido. Does that count?

      1. Quilligrapher profile image90
        Quilligrapherposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        +1

    2. rhamson profile image77
      rhamsonposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      Making life worse in America is a very broad brush to paint the condition of America. Has my life been made worse and is it his fault? Yes and I don't know. There is a congress that had a lot to do with it and how are they culpable? Remember they voted to put the ACA into law. That took republicans as well so how is one man to blame?

      1. 60
        retief2000posted 2 years ago in reply to this

        There wasn't a single Republican vote for Obamacare and multiple bills introduced to repeal or defund it.  Try again.

        1. rhamson profile image77
          rhamsonposted 2 years ago in reply to this
          1. 60
            retief2000posted 2 years ago in reply to this

            They did not vote for the Affordable Care Act - HE did.  Though I stand corrected in my assertion that NO Republican voted for it.  How does the vote of one Republican become Republican support? It was your assertion that RepublicanS supported Obamacare, this is patently untrue.

            1. Quilligrapher profile image90
              Quilligrapherposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              Retief is essentially correct to claim not one Republican cast a vote in favor of the final version of the ACA. It has me wondering why Republicans totally stonewall the principles of a national health care insurance program funded by an individual mandate and, where needed, by government subsidies or vouchers. These have all been the legislative objectives of many Republicans going back at least as far as President Nixon.

              Nixon’s Comprehensive Health Insurance Plan

              A major national health insurance program was the goal of Republican President Richard Nixon in a Special Message to the Congress Proposing a Comprehensive Health Insurance Plan, February 6, 1974. “For the average family," he wrote, “it is clear that without adequate insurance, even normal care can be a financial burden while a catastrophic illness can mean catastrophic debt.” {1}

              Obamacare sired by Ultra-Conservatives

              Stuart Butler of the far right conservative Heritage Foundation proposed a plan in 1989 he called “Assuring Affordable Health Care for All Americans.” The plan’s provision to “mandate all households to obtain adequate insurance” is based on a very simple principle: “A mandate on individuals recognizes this implicit contract. Society does feel a moral obligation to insure that its citizens do not suffer from the unavailability of health care. But on the other hand, each household has the obligation, to the extent it is able, to avoid placing demands on society by protecting itself.”  {2}

              Republican legislation mimics Obamacare

              An individual health insurance mandate was part of two bills introduced by Republican lawmakers in 1993. One, the Health Equity and Access Reform Today Act of 1993, sponsored by Republican Senator John Chafee (R., R.I.) was also co-sponsored by 19 other Senate Republicans: Christopher Bond, Bob Dole, Chuck Grassley, Orrin Hatch, Richard Lugar, Alan Simpson, and Arlen Specter among them. This bill sponsored by 20 of the 43 Republicans in the Senate at that time called for an individual mandate and health insurance vouchers for low-income Americans. {3}

              Romneycare, the prototype of Obamacare

              Romneycare, the 2006 signature legislative achievement of Republican presidential candidate and former Governor of Massachusetts Mitt Romney, served as the model for Obamacare. During the Las Vegas debate in October, 2011, Gov. Romney said: “we got the idea of an individual mandate from you [Newt Gingrich]… and you [Newt] got it from the Heritage Foundation.” {4}

              Romneycare wins praise from conservatives

              Former Republican Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich wrote: “the most exciting development of the past few weeks is what has been happening up in Massachusetts. The health bill that Governor Romney signed into law this month has tremendous potential to effect major change in the American health system.” He also said he and other conservatives “agree entirely with Governor Romany and Massachusetts legislators that our goal should be 100% insurance coverage for all Americans… The individual mandate requires those who earn enough to afford insurance to purchase coverage, and subsidies will be made available to those individuals who cannot afford insurance on their own. We agree strongly with this principle.” {5}

              In 2007, 12 Republican senators including Senators Bob Bennett (R-Utah), Judd Gregg (R-N.H.), Michael D. Crapo (R-Idaho), Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.) and Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.) introduced the Healthy Americans Act. The bill called for all individuals to have healthcare insurance coverage and to provide subsidies where necessary to ensure that everyone can afford it. {6}

              Hindsight is 20/20

              It plain to see that Republicans have long been advocates of the goals and mechanisms in the Affordable Care Act but ferociously oppose the law today in part because it was proposed by a Democratic President. The public record shows it was not until 2009, as the ACA moved through a Democratic Congress, did Republicans declare Obamacare’s individual mandate provision “unconstitutional.” As we all know, the Heritage Foundation, the Congressional Budget Office and the Supreme Court did not agree.

              A review of the public record reveals that Republicans were the first to embrace the underlying principles found in the ACA of 2010. Furthermore, they did so decades before lobbyist Jeanne Schulte Scott coined “Obama-care” and long before the Republican Tea Party Caucus set out to bury it.
              http://s2.hubimg.com/u/6919429.jpg
              {1} http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/Stories … posal.aspx
              {2} http://healthcarereform.procon.org/sour … ricans.pdf
              {3} http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/Stories … -bill.aspx
              {4} http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/ … se.05.html
              {5} http://web.archive.org/web/200608220611 … etterid=20
              {6} http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co … 02523.html

              1. 60
                retief2000posted 2 years ago in reply to this

                "Individual Mandate"

                Regardless of what Richard Nixon - hardly a conservative but certainly a Republican, remember he is the father of the EPA and wage and price controls - or the Heritage Foundation (infallibility is a matter of faith not conservative politics) say about health insurance, it is the Federal Government commanding individuals to purchase a product that is objectionable to conservatives.  From where does the Federal Government derive the authority to force the consumption of a product?  The Supreme Court ruling regarding the Obamacare individual mandate converts, without stated justification or reason, the compelled purchase of insurance into a discussion of the Federal Government's taxing authority.

                It is no longer an individual mandate.  With the wave of a magical gavel by Chief Justice and prescription medication abuser, John Roberts, a tax to pay for health insurance.

                That is why conservatives object, it is dramaturgy not constitutionally regulated governance.

                1. Quilligrapher profile image90
                  Quilligrapherposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  Retief,
                  I must be loosing my touch. I can not find any evidence that Chief Justice Roberts regularly abuses prescription medication. The closest I come is a tinfoil theory from a dim witted conservative radio personality repeated by a stable of moronic bloggers and non-thinkers. Surely, you have a link to a credible source. Of course, a simple retraction will do.
                  http://s2.hubimg.com/u/6919429.jpg

                  1. 60
                    retief2000posted 2 years ago in reply to this

                    It is so fun to get a rise out of people.

              2. mio cid profile image63
                mio cidposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                true, Obamacare sucks,let's move on to single payer already.He should have never tried to negotiate with a party being held hostage by right wing loons,and implemented a middle of the road plan.he should have gone for all the marbles when he could .I'm sure Hillary won't make the same mistake though , at least something positive will come out of that situation.

                1. 60
                  retief2000posted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  Obamacare was passed into law without a single Republican vote for the final bill(though there was one for the draft).  If he had wanted single payer, he could have had it.  We have a single payer health program called Medicaid, how well does that work.

                  As for Hillary, it is unlikely that she will be the next president.

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

                  Negotiations weren't necessary.  The POTUS pushed Obamacare through with almost nonexistent support from the Right; Obamacare, in your own words, sucks.  That's on the Left, because they could have just as easily pushed the system you are advocating but did not do so.  You have a clear group of people to blame, the people who wrote the bill, passed the bill, and continue to stand behind the bill.

            2. rhamson profile image77
              rhamsonposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              I apologize for the misleading "nature" of my post. But sometimes these all or nothing scenarios pervade and supersede the conversation so many times. Yes you were right that ultimately the amended version revealed a united republican opposition but there was that one pesky preliminary exception that draws at least one all or nothing opinion. It does not matter as the real problem is how Roberts signed off and allowed this unconstitutional law to be upheld.

              1. 60
                retief2000posted 2 years ago in reply to this

                The unelected, life time appointed justices?  Is he a Republican or a jurist?  Has he ever held elective office?  Seems that as a jurist he is neither Republican nor Democrat.  He was (all or nothing) absolutely NOT a member of either legislative body from which the law was passed.  As far as unconstitutional goes, isn't everything approved by the Supreme Court constitutional.  If you don't think so ask a lefty about the acrobatics required to find federal authority to protect abortion.

                1. rhamson profile image77
                  rhamsonposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  Or ask anyone what makes sense is more of a filter. I try not to assume whose who when it comes to their leaning but I find it amusing you direct so much time and effort to do so. How well does that work for you?

          2. GA Anderson profile image86
            GA Andersonposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            Hmmm... maybe he was channeling Hillary, Kerry, and other democrats that in other legislative confrontations - "voted for it before they voted against it?" Or was it voted against it before they voted for it, or....

            He was the sole Republican to vote for the draft bill, but he voted against the final version of the act that became law -  the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.

            So... does voting for the draft, but not the final version count?

            What say you Relief2000 - any second thoughts on your concession?

            GA

            1. 60
              retief2000posted 2 years ago in reply to this

              He did vote with Democrats to pass the draft.  It would have passed regardless of how Cao voted.  Interestingly enough it is not the House Bill but the Senate Bill that is most important since it is the unconstitutional maneuvering of the Senate that may eventually sink the entire Law.

    3. GA Anderson profile image86
      GA Andersonposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      The invitation said free food. Where is the free food?

      Can we see your list first?

      ps. I hope Johnfrmcleveland doesn't see your "bankrupt America" declaration. He has some pretty interesting points that say that can't happen. Just sayin'

      GA

    4. Quilligrapher profile image90
      Quilligrapherposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      How do you do, Ms. Williams. Glad to see you here today.

      The last time I listed how much better I am since President Obama took office I was falsely accused of aping liberal talking points. Clearly, I can not speak for the entire country but suffice it to say I am personally much better off today than on inauguration day 2009. I would be happy to post all of my positive gains under the Obama Administration but I suspect you only want to hear negatives. 

      By the way, anyone who has followed the progress of the Affordable Care Act knows that projected costs of the insurance coverage provision continue to decline year after year compared to earlier estimates. It is easy for all to see that the ACA is not showing any signs that it will bankrupt America. In fact, only diehard opponents of the law make such claims these days and they never can supply any proof it will actually happen. I trust you will provide more than just political rhetoric without substance. The very latest financial analysis from the Congressional Budget Office reaffirms the ACA’s continued overall net fiscal health for the next decade and the one after.

      Beyond just the Insurance Coverage provisions of the ACA, analysts say the total budgetary impact of the law “includes many other provisions that, on net, will reduce budget deficits. Taking the coverage provisions and other provisions together, CBO and JCT have estimated that the ACA will reduce deficits over the next 10 years and in the subsequent decade.” [Emphasis added.] {1}

      In stark contrast, the OP statement professes to know more about the ACA than the CBO. Never the less, I am sure you have sound logical reasons to believe the ACA will bankrupt the nation. Please give us data we can verify and discuss.

      Until then, Grace, I have to tell you how much I love the passion in your prose. Never let that get away. Have a wonderful night.
      http://s2.hubimg.com/u/6919429.jpg
      {1} http://www.cbo.gov/publication/44176

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

        Thank you for your eloquence as always and God Bless!

    5. 0
      mbuggiehposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      Actually, I think it's been status quo for some time now in the US dating back to the Reagan/George H.W. Bush Administrations.

      But, I was amused over the weekend to see vice-president and presidential hopeful Joe Biden attacking NOT the George H. W. Bush or George W. Bush Administrations for the supposed decline of the American middle-class, but Bill Clinton.

      Clearly, Joe Biden is planning to---one more time (!), run for president.  Can Rick Santorum be far behind in yet another run???

      1. Zelkiiro profile image85
        Zelkiiroposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        I knew Biden was nuts, but...wow.

        That guy who organized the last national budgetary surplus during the 90s when the economy was actually doing pretty great? Yeah, it's all his fault, clearly. Let's not look at the Presidents who sandwiched him and funneled all our money into pretty pointless wars, because that would just be silly.

        1. 0
          mbuggiehposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          Exactly!

          Biden's comment coupled with the recent magazine article re-visiting the Clinton-Lewinsky nonsense tells me a couple of things:

          Democrats challenging Hillary Clinton for the party nomination are going to (1) play the she's just a women and wife of a former president card AND (2) play the she was an integral part of the Clinton Administration and things were rotten then card.

          Really rather disgusting.

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

          Zelkiiro,

          Clinton makes Obama look pathetic, right?  Let's agree on that much.  For that matter, I think Kennedy, LBJ, Truman, and Roosevelt make Obama look bad.  Is it safe to say that the POTUS is the weakest president, who is/was a Democrat, in years? 

          The standard response that the Left makes is to compare President Obama to Bush, but I'm confident you'll compare Democrats to Democrats.  If so, can we both agree that the POTUS is pretty weak compared to his competition, Democrats?  I guess one could argue that Carter was as big a failure, but that's not a glowing endorsement, is it?

          1. Zelkiiro profile image85
            Zelkiiroposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            Eh, you've got a point. Can't really argue against that.

  2. 84
    Education Answerposted 2 years ago

    Here's a start:

    1. The job market isn't great.

    2  Things cost more.  Gas, food, and so many other goods cost a lot more.

    3.  Obamacare - I pay more for less.  Queue the lecture about helping the poor.  I'm going to be poor by the time I'm finished helping.

    4.  Common Core - I'm a teacher, so this one hits home for me, and yes, President Obama did support and encourage the adoption of Common Core, as did/do some republicans who are equally wrong.

    5.  Drones, kill lists, domestic spying, and so many other Patriot-Act activities have been expanded.

    1. Zelkiiro profile image85
      Zelkiiroposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      Hey. Hey. Guess what? This recession began in 2006. Hey. Hey. Guess what? Obama wasn't President in 2006. Hey. Hey. Guess what? Despite that little tidbit, the economy doesn't give a damn who the President is.

      3. If we just stopped being bullheaded morons, we could have free Universal Healthcare just like the rest of the industrialized world. But your beloved Republicans wouldn't have it. So here we are. Actually, no, wait, if we had any fiscally-sensible Republicans, they'd see how beneficial to the economy it would be to cut out the insurance middleman. Instead, we just have a bunch of batsh!t Tea Party Conservatives and faceless old men stuck in the back pockets of Wall Street interests.

      4. Okay, yeah, Common Core sucks but the President likes it. So what? He didn't sign into law that it must be required. Why is this on your list?

      5. Oh look, things you Republicans were all in favor for pre-2008, and now suddenly you hate them? lol okay

      1. 84
        Education Answerposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        Hey. Hey. Guess what?  I know it started under George Bush.  That doesn't excuse the abysmal job President Obama has done.  Put blame on George bush. I do.  Put due blame on President Obama too.

        "But your beloved Republicans wouldn't have it."

        Are you confusing me with somebody who is happy with Washington?  Beloved isn't a word I would use to describe any living and/or active politician.

        "Okay, yeah, Common Core sucks but the President likes it. So what? He didn't sign into law that it must be required. Why is this on your list?"

        The economy tanked, and schools across the country were struggling.  The federal government stepped in with Race to the Top.  In order to get this federal funding, states had to adopt certain measures.  This highly encouraged states to adopt Common Core.  Only states that adopted Common Core got the funding.  President Obama didn't force Common Core, but he made ample financial incentives possible for states that adopted Common Core.  The message was clear.  Adopt Common Core or you won't have a chance of getting badly needed federal funding. 

        Common Core isn't as great as people claim, and I'm very unhappy with politicians, on both sides of the aisle, who support Common Core without understanding how bad it really is.  It's being hailed as a step up in intensity, but I don't see it as being that.  I see it covering a lot of the same skills but forcing different ways to solve problems.  Instead of dividing, kids may be asked to use repeated subtraction twenty-five times to find the quotient.  You can miss a math problem and still get an "A" for having the right work; I wonder if bosses will pay employees for getting the wrong answer.  I guess it might be like paying farmers not to farm.  Great literature is being replaced by government publications.  This isn't a step in the right direction.  If you could see how asinine the tests are, you'd agree too.


        "Oh look, things you Republicans were all in favor for pre-2008, and now suddenly you hate them? lol okay"

        I have repeatedly gone on the record, for years, saying I wasn't a fan of the Patriot Act under George Bush, and I'm not a fan now.  Now, however, the Patriot Act is getting even more invasive.  Don't you feel it's wrong for your government to infect your computer so it can keep an eye on you?  If a person or a business tried that, jail time would be a likely outcome if they were caught.  My government shouldn't do the same thing criminals do, and I won't support that kind of criminal activity under any administration.

  3. Levellandmike profile image82
    Levellandmikeposted 2 years ago

    Where do I start......

  4. MG Singh profile image82
    MG Singhposted 2 years ago

    Would America have been better if anybody else had been President? I dont think so as what is happening in America is a historical cycle as the USA slowly slides  down

    1. 84
      Education Answerposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      I believe any of the candidates, on either side of the aisle, would have been better.

      1. Zelkiiro profile image85
        Zelkiiroposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        Oh, please. The only Republican who was worth anything in the 2012 election was Jon Huntsman, and even then, his own party tossed him out the window pretty quickly.

        1. 84
          Education Answerposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          I didn't say any were great candidates, only that any would be better than President Obama.  All major candidates, from both sides of the aisle, would have done a better job.

    2. 0
      mbuggiehposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      Despite your "wishful thinking"---that the US is done for or on it's last leg or beginning its slow slide into oblivion, I wouldn't bet on it. We have been down and almost out many times before (we Americans) and we always come back.

      1. Zelkiiro profile image85
        Zelkiiroposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        Cite five.

        1. 0
          mbuggiehposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          1.  At the close of the American Revolution the newly formed "united states" was virtually done. We were overwhelmed by debt and lack of any cohesiveness in government or governance. The Article of Confederation was failing a post-Revolutionary War America. Americans rallied; held a constitutional convention; re-created the US as the "United States of America" under the US Constitution.

          2.  Failed governance and failed economic growth---particularly in terms of international trade created such economic, political, and social turmoil in the US that the British determined it was time to take back their colonies. The War of 1812 commenced. The British burned the White House. But, Jackson defeated the British at the Battle of New Orleans. The US prevailed. Post-1812 economic, political, and social life in the US improved and the US became a recognized international actor.

          3.  The Civil War. Nothing really needs to be said of the depth from which the US emerged to, by 1877-1900, become a leading industrialized nation.

          4.  The Great Depression. Again, little really needs to be said of how the US re-emerged from a catastrophic economic collapse to, by the mid-1950s, be the world's economic superpower.

          5. In 1957 the US was humiliated by the USSR with a satellite called "Sputnik". We had virtually NO space or satellite program while the Soviets were well on their way to landing on the moon. In 1969, Americans---not Russians, landed on the moon. Americans, not Russians, won what would be called the Space Race.

          The list goes on well beyond 5 and includes, if our memories are not too short, the 9/11 attack not only on the World Trade Center and Pentagon, but on the American economy and the American people. New York City and New York State did not collapse. The finances of the US did not collapse. The Defense Department did not collapse. The American people did not demand isolation; we did not hide in fear of international terrorism. We fought back.

          1. Quilligrapher profile image90
            Quilligrapherposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            Bravo!
            Q.

  5. junko profile image81
    junkoposted 2 years ago

    Education Answer: Why do you feel that way about  Obama?  Is there a difference in he and any of the others?// C'mon, don't be vague.

    1. 84
      Education Answerposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      His foreign policy is akin to Carter's, if that.  Maybe he should draw another red line and damage our credibility a bit more by spying on Germany and other allies even more.

      His economic policy has been a failure.  The recovery is/was slow at best.  Jobs would be nice.  Yes, I know that some jobs have been created under his administration.  Let's be honest about these abysmal numbers.

      His signature legislation is Obamacare.  Enough said.

      He is about as transparent as a brick wall. 

      I'd Take Bill Clinton, LBJ, Kennedy, Truman, or Roosevelt over him in a heartbeat.  (Queue the eventual claim that I do not like him because of the color of his skin.)  It has everything to do with the failure of his policies.  Carter, on the other hand, might be a similar proposition, a difficult decision.

      1. junko profile image81
        junkoposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        His foreign policy... thats vague. He has had a few opportunities to involve our our young military in another war in the middle .Every since his election the teaparty republicans have said, there is no money for government jobs, unemployment benefits, food stamps, inforstructure repairs, healthcare etc., but they do support War. This President is like no other and the first to have his credit card cancelled. The previous president couldn't fight two wars at one time, pass his Bushcare drug program and bailout Wall Street without his credit card because he wanted to keep the Bush Tax Cuts.

        1. 84
          Education Answerposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          I totally agree that President Obama's foreign policy is vague.  You forgot to mention that President Obama increased our military presence. 

          Obama versus FDR in leadership . . .FDR (World War II versus Benghazi)
          Obama versus Truman in taking responsibility . . .Truman  (The buck stops here versus I didn't know)
          Obama versus Kennedy in foreign policy . . . Kennedy  (Cold War versus red lines)
          Obama versus LBJ in racial rights. . .LBJ (Where to begin. . .)
          Obama versus Clinton in the economy . . .Clinton  (Jobs, smaller deficit, greater GDP versus fewer jobs and more debt)

          Can you name anything Obama beats FDR, Truman, Kennedy, LBJ, or Clinton in?  Lying?  Even that's debatable. . .

          President Obama is a failure when you compare him to other presidents who were Democrats. 

          If you would like, let's debate each topic in detail.  Where do you want to start?

          1. junko profile image81
            junkoposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            Lets start at the top of your topics Yes, he increased our miltary presence in Afganistan after or during the time he ended our military presence Iraq. World war II verses Benghazi, FDR didn't have cut back on government spending and on protection of of US Embassies because of a major party's insistance on austerity during his commission of world II. Obama versus Clinton.. they are both liberal and democrats, Obama picked the health fumble and scored. Red line versus war??? The rest is not debateable, its just hate filled hogwash about a man who you hate so much you can't really say why you hate him so.

            1. 84
              Education Answerposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              "World war II verses Benghazi, FDR didn't have cut back on government spending and on protection of of US Embassies because of a major party's insistance on austerity during his commission of world II. "

              This is the biggest excuse ever, one that is perpetually pushed by Democrats.  $2.37 billion dollars is a lot of money.  This was more than enough money to keep Americans safe.  Benghazi wasn't caused by budget cuts.  It was caused by bureaucracy that didn't heed warnings and requests.  It was covered up by politicians too busy worrying about furthering their own interests in an upcoming election.  A real leader would have owned the problem, like Kennedy owned the Bay of Pigs fiasco.

              "Obama picked the health fumble and scored. "

              How did he score?  Obamacare isn't a touchdown.  In the words of one of your fellow Democrats here at HubPages, "Obamacare sucks."

              "The rest is not debateable, its just hate filled hogwash about a man who you hate so much you can't really say why you hate him so.

              I don't hate President Obama, really.  I hate his politics. 

              How would you rate him in comparison to FDR, Truman, Kennedy, LBJ, and Clinton?  You know I put him at the bottom of this list.  Where would you put him?

              1. junko profile image81
                junkoposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                I would put President Obama in a class by himself. No other President in the history of the United States has had his Presidency attacked alone with the government he presides over in such a disrespectful way. Why? Maybe its because other respected lawmakers publicly declared the President is not an American and has no right to be President because he was born in Afirica and not an African American. The disrespect of the American President by Americans has weaken America in the eyes and ears of the world. Teaparty Republicans fool some people in America all the time,some some of the time but on the world stage we all look like fools trying to dis our leader because he IS NOT LIKE PASS PRESIDENTS as you see it. None of the men you offer up for comparison had to govern under the same disrespect as Obama, if they did you wouldn't be offering dems and repubs as successful Presidents. Inspite of it all he was reelected.

                1. 60
                  retief2000posted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  Just goes to show that American lefties live in a bubble entirely separate from the facts of history.

                  1. junko profile image81
                    junkoposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                    Lefties, righties, republicans, democrats,conservatives  liberals, white, black, brown, red, yellow,  hawk, doves and the poor and needy live in this bubble called america. Will the facts of history repeat itself and have another civil war , this time idealogy not slavery will light the fuse.This time the diversities and idealogies involved may from a circular firing squad and America will fall, i fear.

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

                  "I would put President Obama in a class by himself. No other President in the history of the United States has had his Presidency attacked alone with the government he presides over in such a disrespectful way."

                  That's not true at all.  Many presidents have been attacked.  The POTUS has just done a good job of making it look like politics are more vicious now.  Plenty of examples exist.  How about the attacks on Andrew Johnson?  Nixon, Carter, Clinton, and Bush were all viciously attacked by the opposition.  If you were to ask Clinton, he'd be the first to tell you that the whole Monica Lewinsky scandal was pretty vicious.  Bush wasn't our president, remember?  Bush lied. . .people died. . .  That's pretty vicious.  Multiple people tried to impeach bush, just like Obama.

                  1. junko profile image81
                    junkoposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                    Educated: If you think that President Obama has not been treated any different than other Presidents and no precedents have been set in the disrespect of the man in the office, I question your thought process. If you won't see or acknowledge the ovious I can't see you ever taking the blinders off. Attacks based on true actions and total disrespect based on lies are two very different actions  No Presidency had to deal with what Obama has had to deal with in history and you knowit.

 
working