jump to last post 1-26 of 26 discussions (128 posts)

Is Barack Obama one of the worst presidents ever? I say he is.

  1. feenix profile image60
    feenixposted 18 months ago

    Obama is a fool.

    The man has absolutely no leadership ability, he is in way over his head, ISIS is cleaning his clock, Putin is treating him like a bitch, the Iranians are ripping him off, he didn't even have the common sense to come down hard on the rioters in Ferguson and Baltimore, he allowed his wife to give the stupid commencement speech that she delivered at Tuskegee, he's putting a stop to the feds providing local police departments with military-style equipment to use in protecting their communities against today's heavily-armed criminals and any terrorist outfits that may show up on the scene, like a little punk he's whining and complaining about how the Fox News Channel is getting on his case, he's dumb enough to be seen in public with Al Sharpton, and I could go on.

    1. Don W profile image84
      Don Wposted 18 months ago in reply to this

      Ok, I'll bite.

      "ISIS is cleaning his clock"

      The situation in the Middle-East represents a number of complex geopolitical issues with a bewildering array of socio-economic, cultural, and historical variables. Charging into that complex situation on the grounds that ISIS is 'cleaning [the President's] clock' would be unhelpful and foolish in the extreme. It's that type of thinking that partly caused the problems in the Middle East in the first place.

      "Putin is treating him like a bitch"

      If you are using the word "bitch" to mean woman, then this language is highly offensive. You were the one who posted a thread called "HP should have a 0-tolerance policy when it comes to racist remarks". I suggest you apply the same thinking to sexist remarks too.

      As far as your point goes, you haven't really got one. International politics does not require macho men who can only think as far as their own egos. There is too much at stake. It requires objectivity, rationality and an ability to influence behaviour in ways other than brute force.

      "the Iranians are ripping him off"

      In what way?

      "he didn't even have the common sense to come down hard on the rioters in Ferguson and Baltimore"

      Part of the President's job is to condemn behaviour that goes against the rule of law. He did.

      "he allowed his wife to give the stupid commencement speech that she delivered at Tuskegee"

      Do you mean the comments where Michelle Obama told graduates not to let issues like racism and poverty hold them back from their dreams? Which part of that do you object to exactly?

      "he's putting a stop to the feds providing local police departments with military-style equipment to use in protecting their communities against today's heavily-armed criminals and any terrorist outfits that may show up on the scene"

      Tyranny (real tyranny, not the tin foil hat kind) starts with a police state. A police state starts with paramilitary police. Arming the police with military equipment to be used against civilians is the beginnings of a police state. Terrorism is a real issue that needs to be addressed, but it should not be used as an excuse to diminish the rights of citizens. People have a constitutional right to protest and should not be confronted by paramilitary police officers when they do so.

      "like a little punk he's whining and complaining about how the Fox News Channel is getting on his case"

      Who do you think is more of a "little punk", the person who got off his behind, got an education, became a community organiser, then senator, then President, overcoming racial bias at every step of the way. Or the person who post comments on an internet forum using distasteful language, complaining about who the President is seen in public with? I suggest it could be the latter.

      1. feenix profile image60
        feenixposted 18 months ago in reply to this

        The truth is, bitch is the proper name for a female dog -- and I was merely expressing that Putin is presently treating Obama like some people treat dogs; with no respect at all. Now, if in your mind the word bitch is only applied to female humans; you either have some kind of a problem or your need to brush off your Webster's and look up the multiple ways in which the word is used.

        And so far as the rise of ISIS and the fact that the organization is on the march, Obama is totally to blame for that situation. By pulling all US military forces out of Iraq, he left the door wide open for that outfit to grow to the levels it is today -- and he also left the door wide open for the Iranians to stick their noses into everything that is currently happening in northern Iraq and for there to be a raging civil war in Syria.

        Michelle Obama's speech at Tuskegee: Much of it was about telling the young black people in attendance that they are destined to be the "victims" of discrimination, profiling and other forms of racism.

        I could go on but that would be futile, because it is quite obvious that when it comes to evaluating Obama's performance as president, there is a vast, deep-blue sea between us.

        1. Don W profile image84
          Don Wposted 18 months ago in reply to this

          If you are referring to a dog, and the gender of the dog is unimportant as is the case here, then perhaps just using the word 'dog' would be a better alternative. I'm sure you wouldn't want anyone to mistakenly think you are the sort of person who refers to women disrespectfully. I gave you the benefit of the doubt by saying "IF" you are using the word in that way. Others might not be so charitable. Just a heads up.



          1) In 2008 President Bush signed a Status of Forces Agreement, which stated that "all the United States Forces shall withdraw from Iraqi territory" by 31 December 2011.
          2) In 2008 President Bush reduced US troops in Iraq from 168,000 to 146,000.
          3) 2008 - 2010, under the Obama administration, the number of US troops was gradually reduced to around 50,000 acting as a 'transition force'.
          4) In 2011, all remaining US forces were withdrawn as per the agreement between President Bush and the Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki.
          Moreover:
          5) It is unreasonable to expect US troops to be permanently stationed in every country where there is risk of civil war.
          6) The situation in the Middles East is so volatile it's likely that sectarian conflict would have erupted regardless of the presence of US troops.
          7) It is more likely that the power vacuum and instability caused by regime change as part of the Arab Spring, and the civil war in Syria were the catalyst of the resurgence of Islamic fundamentalist groups, not the withdrawal of US troops.



          She didn't tell students they were destined to be victims. She outlined some of the challenges overcome by former students who went on to do great things; outlined the challenges she and her husband faced; talked about how the fear of profiling and other discrimination can be a burden, but only if they let it:

          "But, graduates, today, I want to be very clear that those feelings are not an excuse to just throw up our hands and give up. Not an excuse. They are not an excuse to lose hope. To succumb to feelings of despair and anger only means that in the end, we lose. But here’s the thing -- our history provides us with a better story, a better blueprint for how we can win. It teaches us that when we pull ourselves out of those lowest emotional depths, and we channel our frustrations into studying and organizing and banding together -- then we can build ourselves and our communities up. We can take on those deep-rooted problems, and together -- together -- we can overcome anything that stands in our way."

          https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-of … nt-address

          You are deliberately misrepresenting what she said. My question is, why? What purpose does it serve?


          More of an ocean I'd say.

          If you're going to criticise the President, at least do it properly. Don't just regurgitate right-wing, point-scoring nonsense. What about the fact the President, and Congress are unduly influenced by corporations, both foreign and domestic. The President promised campaign finance reform. It didn't happen. Doesn't that bother you? What about the fact that banking institutions caused billions of dollars of damage through fraud and greed which affected the lives of millions, yet none of the senior executives have faced criminal prosecution. In contrast an ordinary citizen who doesn't pay a parking ticket can be thrown in jail. The President promised Wall Street reforms. Didn't happen. Doesn't that bother you? What about the slow undermining of constitutional rights that's taking place in many states across the country. Doesn't that bother you?

          Instead you choose to criticise the President for an historical situation that is not of his making, and then misrepresent a perfectly reasonable speech by the First Lady. In what way are either of those things helpful? This is the problem with politics today. People act like it's a soap Opera. Political comment has become no more inciteful than gossiping about the latest reality TV show. Dissapointing.

          1. feenix profile image60
            feenixposted 18 months ago in reply to this

            Don W,

            What we have here is a case of you like Barack Obama and I do not.

            I just can't into a president who walks with a "ghetto strut" and who often uses "ebonics" words and phrases when he is delivering speeches and other official communications.

            1. Don W profile image84
              Don Wposted 18 months ago in reply to this

              No, what we have here is a case of factually correct vs. factually incorrect. Obama did not agree the deadline for the withdrawal of US troops from Iraq, Bush did. Michelle Obama expressed the opposite message to the one you said she did. Both are a matter of public record. It's not a difference of opinion. You are factually wrong. You may well dislike the Obama's, but that's no excuse for misrepresenting facts about them. And if you are deliberately doing so, then you are effectively engaging in political propaganda. I don't like propaganda.

              A black President walks confidently and it's perceived as arrogance (a "ghetto strut"). A white President walks confidently and it's just perceived as someone walking confidently. I assume you have no issue with the way any other president has walked. Who decided that there is only one way to walk confidently?

              Every President of the modern era has used colloquialisms in their speech patterns. It's a political device employed to get ordinary people to relate to them. Why should Obama not employ the same political device that all other modern era Presidents have?

              1. feenix profile image60
                feenixposted 18 months ago in reply to this

                Wow, Don W, you are madly in love with Barack Obama, aren't you.

                And I must say that people like you are dangerous, because you are the very types that cause a society to end up being under the full control of a ruler. You're in the same league as the large number of Germans who fell in love with Adolf Hitler in the 1930s and 1940s.

                1. Don W profile image84
                  Don Wposted 18 months ago in reply to this

                  Nope. I'm madly in love with being factual. You are misrepresenting the truth to fit your own agenda. You criticized Obama for the timing of withdrawing troops from Iraq, yet failed to mention that George Bush agreed the deadline for the withdrawal of troops before Obama was in office. That's a biased and misleading misrepresentation of the truth, also known as, propaganda.

                  You stated that much of Michelle Obama's commencement speech was about telling black students they will be victims, but if you actually listen to the speech or read the transcript, that's demonstrably false. That's a biased and misleading misrepresentation of the truth, also known as, propaganda.

                  And his walk?! Really? What's next, the way he does his hair? That's downright idiocy, and there's no excuse for it. Politics has been dumbed down enough. No need to make it worse.



                  Now you're comparing the President to the leader of the Nazi party, an archetype of white supremacy, responsible for killing 6 million people. There is no rational justification for such a crass and distasteful comparison.

                  The irony is that one of your 'criticisms' was about Obama preventing law enforcement from receiving military equipment, to stop local police departments turning into paramilitary organizations. You do know the Sturmabteilung started as a paramilitary organization in Germany, and later morphed into the Schutzstaffel (commonly known as the 'SS'). Paramilitarization (which Obama is opposing and you are supporting) is more akin to what happened in Nazi Germany, yet you imply that Obama is the Nazi. Again, you are misrepresenting the truth to fit your own agenda in a way that can be described as propaganda.

                  If your misrepresentation of the truth is due to a lack of knowledge, then it's ignorance. If it's deliberate, then it's plain lying. I don't like either. And nope, that doesn't mean I like everything Obama has said and done, it just means I like ignorance and lies even less.

                  1. feenix profile image60
                    feenixposted 18 months ago in reply to this

                    Don W,

                    Your comment is brimming over with ignorance and excuse-making for the incompetent Barack Obama.

                    As an example, if Obama were a strong leader with foresight, he would have taken action to reverse the arrangement with Iraq made by his predecessor. And if that would not have been unacceptable to the Iraqi regime, he would have let them know, in no uncertain terms, that the US is maintaining a strong military presence in Iraq, regardless of how they feel about it.

                    It is all about the security of the US, and Obama does not have a handle on how that is supposed to work.

                    Just look at what man has done and is doing: He merely stood by while the Russians took over the Crimea region of Ukraine; he is allowing Russian spy ships to dock in Cuba (while he is moving to "normalize ties" with Cuba); he is allowing the Red Chinese Navy to make provocative moves in proximity to Japan; he's trying to hammer out a "nuclear deal" with Iran when it is obviously impossible to keep the Iranians from developing the "bomb"; under his watch, various major US urban areas have reached the threshold of being in states of anarchy, and the list goes on.

                    Today, and largely because of Obama's ineptness, the country is more troubled and dysfunctional than it was during the mid-1960s-to-mid-1970s. The already wide gap between whites and blacks is rapidly becoming even broader; an ever-growing number of young black people are becoming even more anti-social than they already were and are feeling even more disconnected from the remainder of society; a very sizeable number of US residents have the attitude that no one is in charge of the country, and once again, I could go on.

                    So, no matter how any one tries to slice and dice it and serve it up, Barack Obama is a very sorry excuse for a president of the USA as well as a Commander-in-Chief of the US Armed Forces.

    2. rhamson profile image76
      rhamsonposted 18 months ago in reply to this

      Obama is a fool but needs to be Superman is basically the gist of this post. You do give the office of President quite a bit of power. He needs to control the world with what? The military? Trade sanctions? Mean words? What would you have him do? Vanquish all with his power and authority?

      The desire to make the statement that he is the worst President ever is based on what? We did not get our way? Or that he was not hard on segments of our society? How do you control a corrupt Congress, a runaway Supreme Court that is sponsored by previous bad choices and three hundred million people that want their way? I won't even bring up a certain President who had his way and drove the country into monumental debt with two unfunded wars and left us with a monstrous recession bordering on a bigger depression. There you made me do it.anyway lol

      1. feenix profile image60
        feenixposted 18 months ago in reply to this

        I will be straight up and get right to the point: I simply do not like Obama and I do not like his style.

        In my opinion, he is one of the worst things that ever happened to the United States of America. Citing one specific, under Obama's watch, the nation has deteriorated in a wide range of areas that would have been avoided if effective leadership had been in the Oval Office.

        1. rhamson profile image76
          rhamsonposted 18 months ago in reply to this

          I cannot argue with your reasoning. You like what you like and you don't what you don't. Unfortunately feelings do not a great debate make.

          1. feenix profile image60
            feenixposted 18 months ago in reply to this

            rhamson, you are certainly right about that. I have my opinions and you have yours -- and I am very sure that nothing will stop either one of us from standing our ground.

            However, I must say that I remember every president since Dwight Eisenhower, and I also remember almost every detail of the turbulent times of the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s -- and I have never seen the nation as divided and as dysfunctional as it is today. I mean, like, the US is in far more disarray than it was during the Civil Rights Movement, the urban riots of the mid-to-late 1960s, and the massive protests against the Vietnam War.

            And the primary reason why that is the case, Barack Obama comes nowhere close to being a strong national leader like Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson and Nixon were. Those four presidents effectively guided the nation through times that the nation was on the brink of self-destruction; while, on the other hand, Obama became the chief executive during a time when things were not nearly as troublesome as they were in 50s, 60s and 70s.

            Obama was handed a set of circumstances in which there were no gigantic public demonstrations, no blacks being hunted down by white lynch mobs, no domestic terrorists blowing up government and other buildings, no blacks being shut out from nearly every aspect of society there is, and no huge urban riots like the ones that took place in the past, in such cities as Los Angeles, Detroit, and Newark, NJ.

            However, six years into his term in office, things are quite similar to the way things were way back in the day. Because of his lack of leadership skills, the divide between blacks and whites is returning to being as wide as it was 50 years ago and before, various areas around the country are on the threshold of anarchy, many of the poor believe their situation is hopeless and they have no worthy places to go, and the country's foreign affairs is in a state of shambles.

            And let me tell you, the only reason why I am not the president is I have never had the desire to be a politician. In other words, if I had ever been elected president, I would have assumed that office fully equipped to effectively oversee the nation's domestic and foreign affairs. In the area of leadership, I have a whole lot more going for me than Obama does. He can't touch me.

            And for your information, I am retired after serving as commissioned officer in the US Army for five years (I advanced to the rank of Captain) and also after being a high-ranking executive in the insurance industry for more than 40 years.

            1. rhamson profile image76
              rhamsonposted 18 months ago in reply to this

              I too remember Eisenhower on forward. I was a child of the fifties. But as far as strong leaders and comparing them to angels I would beg to differ. Eisenhower with the CIA orchestrated a coup d' etat in Iran overthrowing the democratically elected Prime Minister and installing the Shah. Those feelings were never placated and in 1979 they came to fruition with the overthrow of the Shah by militants that we are still dealing with today. Kennedy led us into the Bay of Pigs trying to take out Castro further cementing Soviet Cuban relations that resulted in coming very close to a nuclear Armageddon. Johnson led us into Vietnam after the Gulf of Tonkin incident that was proven a hoax years later resulting in countless lives and money spent. And then we have Richard Nixon by his own admission was not a crook. Maybe not but he was certainly a liar that disgraced the Presidency by being the only President to resign. I think I would have picked guys like Washington and Lincoln myself to refer to as great leaders.

              1. feenix profile image60
                feenixposted 18 months ago in reply to this

                Wow, I could write a whole book countering what you wrote.

                About the only thing I agree with you is Kennedy really did screw up with the Bay of Pigs incident. That was nothing but amateur hour.

                So far as the Vietnam War, that was the most important war the US ever fought, even more important than the Civil War and World War II. And I can back up what I say; it is just that this forum is not the place to do it.

                And regardless of "Watergate" and all that followed, Nixon made a bold and decisive move that broke the Soviet Union's back. He went to China and brought them over to the US's side in our nation's ongoing conflict against the Soviets. All of a sudden, there were about one-million Chinese troops massed on the Soviet border, ready to rush in on call.

                Finally, keeping our nation secure is not a pretty thing. A whole lot of lowdown and dirty stuff has to be carried out, in order to keep us safe and sound (e.g. the US installing the staunchly anti-Soviet Shah of Iran for the purpose of denying the Soviets access to the Persian Gulf and Indian Ocean).

                1. rhamson profile image76
                  rhamsonposted 18 months ago in reply to this

                  You say potato....I say...

                  We will have to agree to disagree. It is funny how you extend leeway to some and not others. Perhaps you should write a book on these things as you seem to have a different take on history.

                  1. feenix profile image60
                    feenixposted 18 months ago in reply to this

                    rhamson, it is not that I have a different take on recent history. It is I know exactly what happened in the past because I wuz there.

          2. feenix profile image60
            feenixposted 18 months ago in reply to this

            One more thing, the depressed economy that began to come into being under G. W. Bush's watch was the hangover from Bill Clinton's "it's the economy stupid" game plan. The recession that began around 2008 was largely engendered by all of the sub-prime mortgages that began to be handed out during the Clinton administration. In other words, G. W. Bush inherited a "bad economy in waiting" from the Clinton administration.

            And so far as Bush's two "unfunded wars," every war the US has ever fought was "unfunded," spanning the Revolutionary War to the Civil War, to World War II, to the Korean War, to the Vietnam War, to Desert Storm. So Bush's expeditions in Afghanistan and Iraq were merely following suit, when it came to "funding" them.

    3. PhoenixV profile image79
      PhoenixVposted 18 months ago in reply to this

      I think Obama is like what I believe past, recent Presidents have been to some extent, just a spokesman for other powers, groups or factions.

    4. mishpat profile image59
      mishpatposted 18 months ago in reply to this

      Some American history has to come into play here.  That said, his majesty is the worst possible president  for the times.  But then when we look back, we find his rise to prominence is due to the folks that brought you the SDS and weather underground.  The psychology and ideology that was prevalent in that group of dissident, USA-hating and baiting folks of the 60's and 70's, has been nurtured and brought into play.  This same group, not just a mind set but the actual folks that formed these groups, nurtured his majesty with their ideology.  It and he has won acceptability and directing influence among the "I want, I deserve, gimme, gimme" youngsters.  And we, of course, have to add Gus Hall's communist party group of the 80's who swung toward the Democrats with some interesting comments. 

      As far as Putin is concerned, he says (in so many words in his davos speech) about his majesty as interpreted by PA Pundits, "Any fourth grade history student knows socialism has failed in every country, at every time in history,” said Putin. “President Obama and his fellow Democrats are either idiots or deliberately trying to destroy their own economy.” February 23, 2009.  He may not have said these exact words, but the meaning is there, along with his agenda in the Ukraine.  Folks don't hear what they don't want to hear or see what they don't want to see.  Putin knows this.  The burgeoning young populace of the USA does not want to see or hear, as long as they got their starbucks in the right hand and ipod in their left.

      All in all, the biggest difference between Putin and his majesty is "Putin is much smarter, and much more manly."

      Harry Truman, now that was a president.  Korea seems to be one of his few mistakes, but it was a doosy.  In defense of this, it would appear he moved away from his personal stance and got embroiled in the politics of the moment.  Until then, his thought processes were apparently geared to "What is good for the people, not the party and not my personal ambitions."

      We'll never know about Kennedy.  Reagan was pure American.  And Clinton, we probably cannot imagine the possibilities wasted by this man's inability to control his "appetites." 

      But his majesty, supported by his court jesters . . . . hhmmm ... feenix, you may be painting with a broad brush here ... but you may be right!

      1. Don W profile image84
        Don Wposted 18 months ago in reply to this

        That ridiculous Putin "quote" came from a satirical website and has been debunked by Politifacts:
        http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter … -barack-o/

        What's the purpose of such misrepresentation other than propaganda. Has the level of political discussion really stooped this low?

        1. mishpat profile image59
          mishpatposted 18 months ago in reply to this

          Possibly you did not read my words correctly.  I gave credit where credit was due.  PA Pundits is satisfied the "words" were there for interpretation.  And the comment continued to pop up several years after.  Whether a direct statement or interpretation, it is delightful.  And the basic thought is correct.

          However, quite possibly you did not read the davos speech, if that is where the comment is centered.  (I doubt it is.)  At any rate, Mr. Putin (and he deserves a title of respect) was quite clear about the new Soviet Lebensraum.  Yet it seems to be a big surprise that he moved into the Ukraine.  Why is that?  Possibly his cryptic manner of speech is understood by the "wishing and hoping" crowd to be pleasantries.  Yet those in clear minded folks recognized the comments and threats.

          There are at least two types of respect addressed in the political arena; a person that has a proper morality and a person that is a "man of his word."  Putin fulfills the second.  His majesty does neither.

          But I understand the limited, narrow sightedness of today's liberals.  Possibly you should use caps for all your replies, which is the other weapon used to try and dominate a conversation.

    5. mishpat profile image59
      mishpatposted 18 months ago in reply to this

      BTW .... Front page in Reuters today ...

      ARLINGTON, Va. - President Barack Obama heralded the first U.S. Memorial Day in 14 years without a major ground war in an annual ceremony of remembrance for fallen American forces.

      1. ahorseback profile image46
        ahorsebackposted 18 months ago in reply to this

        President Obama , reminds me of the banker , corporate reformers, and selfish profiteers   who  move into the city , buy large  factories  , Strip them down to the bare buildings , sell out the employee's , strip out the valuable resources , and then tear down the buildings .

        And yet , it's not an old  factory that he's  parting out , It's our country !

        He's not even a leader but  simply a left leaning left -over  sixties activist .

        1. feenix profile image60
          feenixposted 18 months ago in reply to this

          ahorseback, you hit the nail squarely on the head. Barack Obama and his crew are nothing but a bunch of wannabe socialists who are attempting to revive and carry out "programs" that faded away with bell-bottom pants and tie-dyed T-shirts.

          1. ahorseback profile image46
            ahorsebackposted 18 months ago in reply to this

            And either we all live in a nation which , one , could afford  the cost of socialism  and choses not to OR  two , realizes as always that no nation CAN afford to pay the price of  the mass socialization or it's  many-multi entitlement wishes .    No my friend , no nation has ever shown that it can afford to simply afford to coddle it's  all wanting, population .

            This president's  social reforming ideals are far outdated ,  they went the way of the Chicago Seven ,   and  pot smoking professors , his and his peoples ideals are  from  another world .  Now, I know we have to even reform the system that we have , but his way ........sucks !

            1. feenix profile image60
              feenixposted 18 months ago in reply to this

              ahorseback, you just about took all of the words out of my mouth.

              I must also say, eight years of Bill Clinton and six years of Barack Obama has served to bring this great republic of ours to its knees. And if four-to-eight years of Hillary Clinton is what is in store for the nation, it will take a very long time for us to dig ourselves out of the damage.

      2. 61
        retief2000posted 18 months ago in reply to this

        I knew it felt like 1939 for a reason.

        1. gmwilliams profile image85
          gmwilliamsposted 18 months ago in reply to this

          1939 was such an anticlimactic year.  It was peace before the storm of World War II.

          1. 61
            retief2000posted 18 months ago in reply to this

            The only Western leader who saw the storm gather was Winston Churchill and he was ridiculed at the time.

            1. feenix profile image60
              feenixposted 18 months ago in reply to this

              retief, now isn't that the truth.

              Barack Obama is some kind of a reincarnation of Neville Chamberlain.

    6. IslandBites profile image85
      IslandBitesposted 18 months ago in reply to this

      Is Barack Obama one of the worst presidents ever?

      No.

  2. aware profile image71
    awareposted 18 months ago

    Andrew  Johnson, James  Buchanan

    1. feenix profile image60
      feenixposted 18 months ago in reply to this

      As far as I know, we are not talking about ancient times here. And besides, back when Andrew Johnson and James Buchanan were presidents, things were not nearly as complex and complicated as they are today.

  3. aware profile image71
    awareposted 18 months ago

    The question  you  asked. Stated  ever.  How long does  ever  mean  to you?

  4. aware profile image71
    awareposted 18 months ago

    Question  is feenix. Can you do better? Are you electable?  Do you have a platform?   Lets start with how you will deal  with isis. Putin and  China.

    1. feenix profile image60
      feenixposted 18 months ago in reply to this

      aware, the answer is YES to each of your questions. But as I stated before, I have no desire to be a politician; thus, I will not be running for president.

      And when you get right down to it, there are thousands of people like me in the US. They are well qualified to be president, they would be electable, they would stand for what many would consider to be strong platforms, and they would be able to effectively deal with Iran, ISIS, Russia, Red China and all of the nation's other "foreign enemies." But, just like me, they have no desire to be politicians.

      What one must keep in mind is, the USA did not become the powerful and wealthy nation it is because of politicians. It became the powerful and wealthy nation it is because of the brains of its "everyday citizens," along with their wide array of skills.

  5. aware profile image71
    awareposted 18 months ago

    Ok William  Henry  Harrison . Long winded   dead within a month
    he has  to be the  worst

    1. feenix profile image60
      feenixposted 18 months ago in reply to this

      Once again, you're talking about ancient history.

    2. 61
      retief2000posted 18 months ago in reply to this

      WH Harrison, foolish but not destructive.

  6. aware profile image71
    awareposted 18 months ago

    So your the worst president  ever. The  one that could  but didnt. Due to the simple  lack of  desire . Obama  at least took the bat. My answer to the forum  question  is no. Obama  isnt the worst. There  are  many  worse. Leading aint easy. You cant please anyone these days. . America still stands. Jeb Bush 2016

    1. feenix profile image60
      feenixposted 18 months ago in reply to this

      Jeb Bush 2016 is just fine with me.

  7. aware profile image71
    awareposted 18 months ago

    Furthermore  your  inquiry  should  read. Worst president  within the  past 50 years.

    1. feenix profile image60
      feenixposted 18 months ago in reply to this

      The question was worded just as I wanted it to be -- and that is because I firmly believe that Barack Obama is one of the worst presidents in all of US history, if not THE worst.

  8. aware profile image71
    awareposted 18 months ago

    Finally  we  agree . I like Jeb

  9. aware profile image71
    awareposted 18 months ago

    Or Dr  Ben  Carson.  Lol just kidding

    1. feenix profile image60
      feenixposted 18 months ago in reply to this

      Ben Carson and Barack Obama do not have anything in common, except for one thing: Neither is qualified to be the President of the United States of America and the Commander-in-Chief of the US Armed Forces.

    2. Kathryn L Hill profile image86
      Kathryn L Hillposted 18 months ago in reply to this

      Don't kid.

  10. aware profile image71
    awareposted 18 months ago

    Well one thing i think. Is  two  brown  Americans  being  elected  back to back ain't  gonna  happen.  Especially  with  many unhappy with  Obama.  Ben is a smart man . Obamas  no dummy either . But Ben s run is uphill. Up mountain  lol,

    1. feenix profile image60
      feenixposted 18 months ago in reply to this

      Obama's no dummy. Well, there's a matter of opinion if I ever saw one.

      1. cathylynn99 profile image79
        cathylynn99posted 18 months ago in reply to this

        obama has a documented genius IQ.

        1. 61
          retief2000posted 18 months ago in reply to this

          Link?

          1. feenix profile image60
            feenixposted 18 months ago in reply to this

            And so do I, as well as several million other people in the US, including men, women and children.

            Also, G.W. Bush is a member of Mensa International. And that, too, is documented.

    2. aware profile image71
      awareposted 18 months ago

      Ever  means 1st thru 43rd

    3. aware profile image71
      awareposted 18 months ago

      You go to Harvard.  You have a political  science  degree  or a law degree? You attain  a doctorates  degree?

      1. feenix profile image60
        feenixposted 18 months ago in reply to this

        No I didn't go to an Ivy League school and I do not have a degree in law.

        However, I did graduate from UCLA with a Bachelor's in Business Administration and a minor in Political Science. Additionally, I graduated from Infantry Officer Candidate School (OCS) and was commissioned as a Second Lieutenant in the US Army -- and I went on to advance to the rank of Captain.

        Furthermore, and as I stated before, I worked in the insurance industry for over 40 years, mostly in the area of healthcare coverage. And because of that background, I could have come up with a "healthcare plan for the USA" that would have been far superior to the one that Obama and his crew came up with.

    4. aware profile image71
      awareposted 18 months ago

      Good  major and minor.  Hoora.  . Memorial  day. Its important to me .

      1. feenix profile image60
        feenixposted 18 months ago in reply to this

        Memorial Day is very, very important to me. I am a veteran of the Vietnam War and on Monday, I am marching in the Memorial Day Parade that goes down New York City's Fifth Avenue -- and I have been doing that for quite a number of years.

    5. aware profile image71
      awareposted 18 months ago

      As far as health care.  Non profit  ins is my idea.  The profit  is insurances  bottom line. They want to post billions ,trillions in profit. Then we need  to address  the fair true cost of  care. Over billing  just to insure  a  smaller profit bilks everyone. Its fantasy  land

      1. feenix profile image60
        feenixposted 18 months ago in reply to this

        Obviously, you do not have very much, if any, knowledge of the healthcare-insurance industry.

        The truth is, private companies that provide and administer healthcare-insurance programs have one of the lowest profit margins in the US world of business. Most of them are only in the business to develop long mailing lists for seeking sales of their other products.

    6. aware profile image71
      awareposted 18 months ago

      Fennix, we got a letter in the mail. Yesterday.. .  It is stamped  signed  by Obama.  A gold eagals  stamp at the  top. It reads  The United  States  of  America. Honors  the  memory  of Floyd  S  Dunn. This certificate  is awarded  by a grateful  nation  in recognition  of devoted  and  selfless  consecration  to service  of our country  in the armed  services  of the United  states. This weekend  i remember  my dad air force  Vietnam  vet. He died  the  day  before  Thanksgiving.  His fave  holiday. He  would roll  in the grave  to see Obama  signed it. Sighs

      1. feenix profile image60
        feenixposted 18 months ago in reply to this

        aware, my heart goes out to you for the loss of your father. And I am very grateful to your father for his service.

        To your father, I belatedly say, Welcome home, brother.

    7. aware profile image71
      awareposted 18 months ago

      Ive been billed.

    8. aware profile image71
      awareposted 18 months ago

      Any profit from the sickness  of others  is the most agregious  thing on earth.in my opinion

      1. feenix profile image60
        feenixposted 18 months ago in reply to this

        aware, it is not about insurance companies profiting from the sickness of others -- and that is because the insurance companies are not the culprit. That is a lie that politicians and much of the major media are spreading, because they're getting a lot of mileage out of it.

        If you want to lay the blame for the high cost of medical care somewhere, blame all of the multi-millionaire physicians there are today, the gigantic hospital and extended-care corporations, and all of the hospital workers whose labor unions have "negotiated" very expensive contracts and benefits for them.

        In fact, if it were not for physicians, clinics, hospitals and extended-care facilities jacking up the bills they send to Medicare and Medicaid, and to private-insurance providers, the cost of medical services would decrease significantly.

        For many years, I saw doctors, hospitals, etc. ripping off, and attempting to rip off, insurance providers from here to high heaven.

      2. 61
        retief2000posted 18 months ago in reply to this

        Any profit from the sickness of others has led to a vast medical system that treats people from all around the world in ways unavailable anywhere else. Damn them!

    9. cathylynn99 profile image79
      cathylynn99posted 18 months ago

      the most efficient insurance in the US is medicare, with only 1% overhead. i say, medicare for all. feenix, what is your plan and can it beat that?

      1. feenix profile image60
        feenixposted 18 months ago in reply to this

        Cathylynn, you are very, very wise.

        Yes, Medicare is, in fact, the most efficient healthcare-coverage plan in the US.

        In fact, instead of coming up with the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare), Obama and his team should have worked with Congress and such groups as AARP to expand Medicare to cover people whose incomes disqualified them from being covered by Medicaid.

        In other words, individuals who were not covered by employer plans or who were "independent contractors" could have bought into Medicare. And that would have been a very practical thing to do because the mechanisms for Medicare are already in place; there just would have been a requirement to expand the system, in order to administer the large number of additional enrollees.

        And if that had been done, it would not have been a precedent because Medicare has been expanded before, to cover dialysis patients and people under 65 on Social Security Disability.

        But the problem was, Obama and his crew let their egos get in the way. They were driven to come up with a plan that would be "all theirs and only theirs." They were pursuing bragging rights and, as things turn out, their quest for "notoriety" blew up in their faces.

        1. cathylynn99 profile image79
          cathylynn99posted 18 months ago in reply to this

          i don't think it was for bragging rights. it was because existing insurance companies would have poured tons of money and boat loads of advertisements into fighting medicare for all.

          1. feenix profile image60
            feenixposted 18 months ago in reply to this

            Cathylynn, you may have noticed that in some of my previous comments, I stated that I retired from the healthcare insurance industry after working in that field for over forty years. In fact, I was employed by one of the largest life-and-health-insurance companies in the US.

            Well, please allow me to let you in on something:

            All of the large carriers such as Aetna, Blue-Cross Blue-Shield and United Healthcare are absolutely in love with Medicare. The plan is relatively easy for the big insurance outfits to administer and the federal government has their backs when it comes to keeping "over-billing" physicians, hospitals, clinics and extended-care facilities in line.

            And believe me, the private companies that are currently contracted by the feds to administer Medicare are doing just fine so far as profits go -- and if the day ever comes when a huge number of young and healthy people can enroll into the plan, the private carriers' profits would soar, even though they would have very low profit margins.

          2. 61
            retief2000posted 18 months ago in reply to this

            Insurance companies poured tons of money into supporting Obamacare, the Medicare/Medicaid replacement system, so you have a point.

      2. 61
        retief2000posted 18 months ago in reply to this

        There is a rapid decline in the number of doctors for many reasons, not least of which is the absurd and complexity of regulations from the federal government through Medicare and its intrusions into the insurance industry. Doctors could not survive on the pittance paid them through Medicare, without the income from privately insured and self insured patients.

        1. feenix profile image60
          feenixposted 18 months ago in reply to this

          retief, the world is rapidly changing and if one fails to stay well informed, he/she will be left behind.

          The truth is, the need for physicians, especially those who are not specialists, is rapidly declining. And that is because much of the "doctors' work" of the future will be performed by practical nurses aided by highly-advanced technology.

          1. 61
            retief2000posted 18 months ago in reply to this

            This is not solely because of technology, though the point is well taken. Litigation, malpractice insurance, insurance regulations and paper work and the absurdities of government inserting itself into medicine have all contributed to the declining number of doctors.

            1. cathylynn99 profile image79
              cathylynn99posted 18 months ago in reply to this

              according to the docs i know (and i know quite a few, having been one), it's mostly the hoops insurance companies make docs jump through to provide decent care. for-profit hospitals don't exactly cater to doctors, either. from what i saw, litigation is rare, even when there are serious mistakes. most patients are loath to get a doctor they like in trouble. i know of half a dozen times i encouraged patients to sue other docs (main reason they kicked me out) and the patients refused. i personally accepted an $8000 refund rather than sue for a serious misdiagnosis. medicare is not intrusive. medicaid is somewhat.

              1. feenix profile image60
                feenixposted 18 months ago in reply to this

                cathylynn, due to the fact that I worked as a healthcare-insurance claim examiner and underwriter for more than three decades, I am well aware that one of the primary reasons why the insurance companies are making many healthcare providers (including physicians) "jump through hoops" is over the years doctors and other providers have been guilty on numerous occasions of over-billing, of over-utilization of services, and of downright dishonesty when it comes to submitting claims for benefits.

                And just as there is NO such thing as perfect physicians and other healthcare providers, there is NO such thing as prefect healthcare-insurance carriers.

                That is an indisputable law of The Universe.

                Additionally, one should never base his/her "world view" of a particular situation only on what has occurred in "his/her very tiny little corner of life."

    10. cathylynn99 profile image79
      cathylynn99posted 18 months ago

      medicare is also viewed quite favorably by those who use it.

      1. feenix profile image60
        feenixposted 18 months ago in reply to this

        Catylynn, I have been on Medicare for nearly five years and I do not have even one complaint about the coverage I have. And because I have a very serious illness, I am really running up the bills; yet I have only had to pay a relatively small amount out of pocket.

    11. aware profile image71
      awareposted 18 months ago

      The death toll. 1.5  million   plus. To 58 g. May our lost 58+ rest in peace.

    12. Tuesday75 profile image84
      Tuesday75posted 18 months ago

      I cannot say for certain if he's the worst. Different times have different standards however in my 40 years, he has definitely been the most divisive president, seemingly doing everything he can to perpetuate one group's victim-status against another. Women vs. men, blacks vs. whites, (funny how nobody mentions the influx of illegals coming into this country and how they don't like blacks), working class vs. rich/wealthy/middle class, police vs. citizens, homosexuals vs. heterosexuals, etc.

      Yes, I realize this country is far from "perfection" and of course we have had great wrongs done in our name but, we (unlike many other countries), actually have worked hard to right our wrongs and better ourselves making us more tolerant and quite frankly I shouldn't have to point out that we are the most benevolent empire this world has ever seen. Obama gives us NO credit. It's like having that parent who is NEVER satisfied with anything you've done, no matter how well you did. He may very well be a nice guy to hang out with; he may even be a good friend. I don't know but his leadership skills can only be described as foolish.

      The only president I felt safe under and really proud to be an American was under Reagan. That man knew how to bring people together.

    13. Kathleen Cochran profile image85
      Kathleen Cochranposted 18 months ago

      "The situation in the Middle-East represents a number of complex geopolitical issues with a bewildering array of socio-economic, cultural, and historical variables."  Don W. - well said.  Those who have followed the Middle East for at least the last 20 years knew that when Sadaam Hussein was removed all Hell would break loose, and the factions would start killing each other.  The U.S. would have to keep many boots on the ground for 50 years to maintain a semblance of stability, losing how many American lives?  For 4,000 lives, we gave those people a chance.  This is what they are doing with it.

      As for the other issues mentioned, I'm on a vacation from arguing in an effort to unstress my life right now.  Peace.

    14. maxoxam41 profile image78
      maxoxam41posted 18 months ago

      What are you talking about, leadership? You're telling me that the US president is not a puppet? Cite me one who wasn't and that didn't end up dead?

      1. feenix profile image60
        feenixposted 18 months ago in reply to this

        What are you, a high-ranking member of the US's "shadow operations and governing body?"

    15. Steven Slivka profile image84
      Steven Slivkaposted 18 months ago

      Pierce, Harding, Hoover, Bush II, Buchanan, Tyler, van Buren....these are just a handful of presidents who are worse than Obama. I don't understand where you get your information from, but it couldn't be more off.

    16. ahorseback profile image46
      ahorsebackposted 18 months ago

      Just a little side issue here , But I find it very ,very interesting that those who decry this attitude of dislike,, distrust , dis-respect  for Pres. Obama , who claim a  lack of  true respect for the leader of our country are more than likely the SAME ones who  so disrespected Pres. G.W Bush , BIG TIME !

    17. 83
      Education Answerposted 18 months ago

      Yes, President Obama is an abysmal president.  When democrats deny this, ask them to identify a worse democrat who was president.  Typically, they refuse to do so;  from this, we can at least agree that he's the worst president who was/is a democrat.

    Closed to reply
     
    working