What grade would you give President Obama for the 8 years in office?
Now that the dust has settled, after the 2016 election and a new administration in place, what grade would you give Obama? (A, B, C, D, F)?
There is no right or wrong answer. Just your honest assessment of what he accomplished or failed to do...
I will start by giving him a C minus.
His 8 years has been under performing in both the economy and in world politics. His most missed oppportunity is the betterment of race relations in America. In fact, I think he made it worse. What is your opinion?I'd go with that assessment. He was a great statesman and orator, inspiring many with both those qualities and his race. His major failings include Obamacare, worsening of race relations by his actions and words and an almost complete failure to promote bi-partisanship. He placated other nations, but whether that was good or bad is another question. He brought style to the White House, which we have lost totally with Trump. He did help the country out of the recession, by using the time and experience honored method of spending our way out it, but unfortunately we don't have anything to show for the trillions spent. Past presidents have left a legacy of improved infrastructure or other things, but the Obama recovery left nothing but banks salvaged from their own idiocy.
This is so partisan and consequently ridiculous. Of course, a rightwinger will never give Obama a passing grade. What do you expect? I give Obama a B. He was weak in believing that he could really confer with Right when they never really intended to cooperate at any level. By the way Jacklee, just because Obama is Black why is he expected to have improved race relations? Those never really have been ideal here. It is just about removing the veil from what has always been there. Am I to expect that he is to pull a rabbit from a hat?
I remember Sept. 2008, seems like we were in pretty bad straits then, how quickly we forget how Mr. Obama successfully brought us back from the brink.
I am surprised that you gave Bill Clinton the grade you gave him. I would have given both Bushs' and Reagan somewhat lower grades.I gave Clinton a higher grade due to the economy. His impeachment would have knocked him down to a C-. He was able to triangulate and change course after lossing the mid term election. Obama never did that.
Comparatively, there was eons of time between the obstruction provided by the GOP in 1995 and that Obama ran into by 2013. It was a much more radically strident and reactionary Republican Party than anything that Clinton faced. He was a great politician and was more effective than Obama for that reason. His wife is lacking in all the things that made Bill successful.
"By the way Jacklee, just because Obama is Black why is he expected to have improved race relations?"
Because every president is expected to improve race relations. His race does not excuse him from that duty.OK, Wilderness, what did you and Jacklee expect Obama to do to improve race relations? You can almost blame the recent prevalence of thevideo camera on cell phones to reveal abuses and friction in the matters of law enforcement, for example, that were always in there within Black communities but simply swept under the rug by police, or otherwise simply not documented. When we had all the race riots during the late 1960's would you have blamed Lyndon Johnson as a fomenter of bad relations between the races?
I will give you 2 reasons how he improved race relations.
1. He proved once and for all that America is racially mature enough to elect someone who has a mixed raced heritage.
2. When he was elected, reparations for slavery was a hot topic. Obama's response: "I have said in the past — and I'll repeat again — that the best reparations we can provide are good schools in the inner city and jobs for people who are unemployed." The reparations movement died a quick death.
The claim that race relations declined under Obama is absurd.Well, Promisem, you are half right. Obama lost both in 2008 and 2012 among the Anglo voters. He only won the election through the overwhelming support of people of color. All people of color, it ran the gamut
I agree wholeheartedly with your second point.LOL. I love it when I'm at least half right.
Regardless, he would have lost if the Anglo vote had been more negative. I call that progress.Yes, it was true if the Anglo vote were more negative. But when I remember The McCain Palin ticket and the economic tsunami in 2008 that was squarely the blame of GOP policies, I am surprised that The GOP ticket got as much support as it did. If the circumstances were not as dire for Republicans in 2008, I am certain that McCain would have won. 2012 was a different story however, your point maynresonate a little better here.
It is seriously absurd considering how white supremacy began to thrive again shortely after Obama was elected as a RESPONSE to him being elected. It put a glaring spotlight that there WERE still radical racial issues surrounding us - and this election has only irritated it by emboldering those types of 'alt-right free-thinkers' even more.
I was really proud of us as a country when Obama was elected, because I really didn't think he could possibly win JUST because 1) that MIX of races alone is blasphemy to many; 2) the color of his skin was WAY too dark, maybe if his white genetics had been more dominant; and 3) dang SCARY Muslim name. I was really sure those three things combined would count him out.
I was SO PROUD of us as a country, it was an amazing milestone!
But, as I've watched Obama though the past eight years, what has been disappointingly-obvious to me is that he has very little respect among 'the right' - and that seemed to be the main reason why he couldn't accomplish nearly as much as we expected him to. He faced a hard wall against them no matter what topic he was trying to address from any direction. Its not like people trusted his 'good' nature NEARLY as much as they seem to trust Trump's 'bad' nature.
While I could understand it in the beginning, it never got better - and its not like Obama was EVER 'Trumpish' with an ugly, irritating disposition to dig deeper divisions or stir up hate. He made an effort to reach out to the GOP in the beginning; but I think that dwindled as the years went on after it didn't do much to help. Remember all those basketball games he would organize, LoL!
What does that say about us as a country? In our collective treatment of Obama compared to every other president we have ever been divided over (The Bush's, Clinton, etc.) - we have never collectively treated a potus so despicably. We deserve maybe a C grade just because of how the extremes balance things out - but dang, some GOPers really deserve a SPANKING. I think it is one of the big reasons why 'the left' feels so entitled to flip the game back onto Trump.
Its not helping, so I am currengly giving our country a D - and I give us that only cuz we're obviously still trying to acclimate.
As for grading Obama... I expected him to be able to accomplish more & better; but the obstruction of the opposing party was unprecidented. And all the while, he kept his head while both he and his beautiful family acted like they actually enjoyed being our first family, despite how ugly we Americans can be.
So, I give him an A for eight years of hard, intelligent effort that paid off in more ways than the right-wing wants to give him credit for - and for doing it SO well against strong winds that no other president has ever had to navigate through. Bravo, and I appreciate the HELL out of the fact that he isn't allowing himself to fade completely into the sunset (after that extended vacation, LoL!) until the country rights itself, again. He obviously knows we could really use his stabiliizing influence. If that isn't a leader going above & beyond the call of duty, I don't know what is. (I probably terrified some antichrist believers just by saying that, ha!)
No really, think about it... Would Obama have been able to be elected if he had been caught even in a PAST conversation like this? Take any Trump lie - any size, little white one or big ugly one - and imagine Obama saying it, much less getting away with it. Its a damn hard stretch of the imagination.
And the worst part is... GOP have NO respect for American voters. They only care about manipulating us.
Keep ignoring me, I'm just a crazy, offensive, WAY too poignant woman - right?!!
Five race riots under Obama. Under his leadership ISIS came alive and wreaked havoc in the middle East. The Economy grew the slowest under any president. He created a war on police. Obamacare is a failure. He opened up Cuba so a Communist country could have more money to oppress their own people. His deal with Iran gave billions of dollars to a country that engaged in state sponsored terrorism. His response " yes, some of the money will go directly to terrorism." When you take away the Obama theater he provided...there was no substance to him or what he did.
I've noticed that my long post with all the incriminating images has been ignorned - despite its many good points. Here's one that you missed about race riots:
"...white supremacy (and racial tensions, in general) began to thrive again shortely after Obama was elected as a RESPONSE to him being elected. It put a glaring spotlight that there WERE still radical racial issues surrounding us - and this election has only irritated it by emboldering those types of 'alt-right free-thinkers'" AND their enemies even more. (Oh my gosh, all the black people getting a BIG HEAD like Obama - that has to be put to a stop! And it wasn't just whites thinking that...)
If you think there is no reason for 'Black Lives Matter' protests bcuz you listen to Fox News tell you what to think - you're not paying attention. We just had another situation in Seattle last week - police killed a PREGNANT mom of FOUR after she had called police to report a burglary. She didn't live in a very good apartment building, so they knew the street; and they also knew this lady. Yeah, she had a reputation for mental issues - and apparently she was holding a knife and wouldn't put it down. So they SHOT her because policemen are too weak to deal with a pregnant lady?!!
Don't even try to argue with me on this point. I live in Seattle and have to live with the destructive 'free speech' protest rallies and the ADDITIONAL violence they have brought JUST since Trump was elected. (Check out the increase in shooting crimes in big cities across the country.)
This racial crap didn't begin with Trump or Obama - they have both brought it out into the mainstream again, each in their own way: Obama by having the NERVE to win a presidential election; and Trump by tossing PC aside to divide racial divisions (and every other division) as deep as he possibly can.
I keep telling you all, Trump's purpose isn't to install a set of controversial GOP initiatives into our government - he is here to divide us a much as he can, beyond the breaking point, if possible.
There is so much more value in bringing this world to a war... We get to use up all the old military weapons & equipment; and have good excuses to manufacture new & better ones. We get to destroy huge segments of land & buildings that will need to be reconstructed, afterwards - BIG MONEY! Who cares about all the dead people? They turn to dust and we will recover bigger & better than ever!
The question is, are we going to let 'the powers that be' continue to tear us apart like this - while they continue to use these silly arguments to divert our attention?
Cuz its not like anyone in here thinks that this country has been intentionally divided - the people are the opposing side, no matter how many there are - are just DUMB.
The people are divided not because they are dumb but because they have passion and they care about our country. The two sides are clear, no grey area. You have a progressive left who believes in humanism over God, who believes in globalism over nationalism, and in social justice of socialism over capitalism. They support open borders and undocumented immigrants over a secured border. They believe in a living document of the Constitution that can be interpreted any which way...
I was being sarcastic when I said that, I KNOW we are not divided because we are dumb. We are divided because the extremes are getting the opportunity to fight - while us Moderates, who DO EXIST are being completely ignored.
You have a progressive left who believes in humanism over God.
Sure, some people believe that - but most of us believe that God is subjective to each individual; and views about him (especially erroneous ones) should not be forced upon the entire population - simply because we don't all worship the same God; and even when we do, we don't all worship him the same way.
who believes in globalism over nationalism
No, what we want is to live in peace with the whole wide world; and cooperate with the rest of the people we share it with. This is a conservative fear, a 'one-world government' - which, in case you haven't noticed, is a LONG way off from happening. There are too many different governments and too many different cultures for this to happen anytime soon. Maybe you've watched too many apolalyptic movies; or perhaps you've read too many twisted interpretations of the Book of Revelations to believe this is the 'end times' as many conservatives believe. If your views are based in FEAR, that's what you will reap - and we are. Neat.
and in social justice of socialism over capitalism
I can't speak for everyone, but most Moderates feel that since this is America - we have the capability to invent our own special blend of what will work for us. There is no 'system' that we need to be subject to or afraid of. I was never a propoent for Universal Healthcare before Trump came along - but obviously that is what we need to develop after we get Trump out of there. I don't view that as being a 'socialist' thing, its just one aspect of our country that we are taking control of since Insurance Companies can't regulate themselves - like the banks couldn't.
They support open borders and undocumented immigrants over a secured border
That is completely untrue. If you secure one border with a wall, you need to secure the other one - they are both 'open' and capable of being a route for terrorists & illegal immigrants. We actually had a terrorist almost make it through a border crossing in Canada, once. Also, since we have had no major attacks in this country for eight years during Obama's time in office - most of us feel that his administration did a pretty good job of vetting out terrorists. Its the ones who are already legally here and becoming 'radicalized' because of people like Trump - that we have to worry about, the most.
They believe in a living document of the Constitution that can be interpreted any which way
Another untruth - The Constitution isn't the unyielding Word of God and it can apparently be interpreted several different ways. I've witnessed all kinds of arguments where 'the right' was being accused of Constitutional violations. (And really, why do you care about The Constitution? Trump is making a joke out of it almost every day - have you seen the most recent tweet storm going on?) It was written a long time ago in a completely different world; and it was created to serve 'we the people'. That's why we can create amendments for it.
I assure you, Moderates & 'the left' are as patriotic as 'the right' - and we're getting awfully tired of being called 'unAmerican'.Well done Misfit Chick. I liked your comment. And I especially liked that it wasn't accompanied by two or three screens of mimes. Thanks for that.
I suppose that, whether I like it or not, I must admit to fitting your description of a "moderate," because except for a question about the "Constitution" part, I agree with all of your comment
Now about that Constitution part, and putting aside the tweeting thing, how do you see Pres. Trump making a a joke of it? My perspective is that the Constitution has worked exactly as intended, from the authentication of his Electoral College victory, to the Court's putting the brakes on some of his actions.
Now, without getting into the tweeting and character arenas, what has he done that makes a joke of the Constitution? *remember, making a joke of the dignity of the office isn't the same thing, and, that it is possible that it is a "moderate" asking.
GAThanks, another moderate view is much appreciated. But come on, some of those memes are really good!
Sorry, 'the dignity' of that office is a part of the Constitution. All of our people look to that office; as well as other countries. What 'we the people' are allowing 'who to do what in it' is our responsibility.
Trump makes a joke of it almost daily just in the way he treats the American public - the way he pits us against each other; the way he bullies people in an attempt to get his way (his inappropriate relationship & conversations with Comey, for instance); the way he uses his Twitter account to attack individuals and sometimes even countries.
Our Declaration of Independence had some pretty strong language in it, in places - but it did not ever resort to the name-calling or insulting the mothercountry that we were breaking up with. Our Constitution was written to create a way for everyone in this country to be free - not create a way for everyone to be free to tear each other down through guns, words nor political party.
Free Speech is the same way... It was never created so that people could say whatever ugly thing they wanted to say. It was created so that people could speak out about and/or against the government (or whatever) if they didn't like what was happening - without fear of punishment. It was never meant to become a platform for profits to be made off of lies (like the tabloids) or propaganda (like fake news).Trump didn't divide us ,divide the media or our leadership we were there already . The language and Trump fight against the media is a response to phoniness and hatred of the Media ITSELF , if the media was responsible , he would be . The media is the cause and the creation of public divide in America , not a victim of it . Period .
Yes, Misfit Chick, some mimes can be good - in small doses.
I understand your perspective about the dignity of the office of the president, but that is not an issue of the Constitution. I have not seen any of Pres. Trump's actions that abuse the Constitution - at least in any degree that hasn't already been in the nature of our political system since the 19th century.
GAThis forum discussion has drifted from the original topic - grading Obama.
How did we the people became the target of grades? Let me get this straight.
According to some on left, the reason Obama did not accomplished much is our fault.
Wee did not treat him with the respect that he deserves because of his skin color.
Somehow, that translated into his failures on so many fronts...
No other presidents in the past received such opposition...
WOW!!!
I am speechless.
The most powerful person on the planet, cannot accomplish anything good because the evil GOP obstructed his every move...
The FACT is:
How did Obamacare came to be law? (Only Democrats voted)
The failed website that cost us 500 million dollars and had to be fixed...
The various exchanges dropping out due to insolvency...
The escalating costs and high deductibles and copays...(making it almost useless)
The Executive order on immigration - knocked down by the Supreme court.
The debacle of Libya and Syria that created ISIS...
The Iran deal which gave them billions to fund terrorists while still working on nuclear weapons.
His failure to produce any bipartisan support...
His lack of executive experience (fewest cabinet meetings of past Presidents)
His over 300 rounds of golf...
His pardoning of record of number of felonies (more than all past presidents combined)
His exchange of 5 top gizmo detainees for Bergdahl. - (charged with desertion)
The cream of the crop... expanding our national debt by doubling in 8 years from 10 to 20 trillion. (which you and I and our kids and grandkids will be re-paying back...)
I could cite more but it does not seem to matter much.
The FACT is, it was his policies that we objected to and why his administration was a failure.
Not because he was black.
I wanted to vote for Dr. Ben Carson, who is black, not because of his skin color but because I agreed with his conservative message."I wanted to vote for Dr. Ben Carson, who is black, not because of his skin color but because I agreed with his conservative message."
So, it goes without saying that I would vote for Liz Warren, or Bernie Sanders not because of either their skin or their gender but based on their support for the progressive agenda.Sorry for hijacking your thread jackclee. I'll just finish replying to responses and stop. Mia Culpa.
GA
I can see you have given this a lot of thought. Let me just respond to the question on the Constitution and why it is important. It is a principled document unique to America and responsible for our success over and above all other nations. The idea of a living document is miss understood by progressives. The living means it can evolve and change over time. However, it is not to be re-interpreted by judges. I hope you see the difference. The Amendment process was put in to allow for change. It was deliberately set to be a high threshold so that we don't change our laws willy nilly. Some say our Constitution is obsolete but I say it is what keep us strong. Without a guiding principle, we have no country, no nation and no culture. I wrote a simple guide on "American Civics 101." You might want to check it out.
The bottom line is - what defines a country? Think about that. Is it only people? Or a common language, a common culture and a strong border.
Obama is not black. His father was black and his mother was white.
As far as I am concerned, he's acknowledged and associated himself with the African American community as an African American man. Once I heard his rendition of an old Al Green Motown hit during one his stops, I was convinced. He is more than a "white man" in Blackface, unlike Ben Carson and others that I know. Being black often goes beyond mere skin color.
Well, he may have said so for political reasons. The fact remains that he is half black and half white. It's rather interesting symbolism for crossing the racial divide, don't you think?
Promises, you know, race and ethnicity is as much a subjective as objective observation. There are not that many people that can say that their lineage is exclusively of one race. He has chosen to live his life immersed in the AA community and not allowing the values of the other half to dilute those values to any serious extent. People, particularely in the beginning in opposition to Obama, had no problem attacking him in derision regarding his Black half.
Just another "Uncle Tom", is he (Carson)? It's hard to imagine more racist or obnoxious comments.
These are good questions, Wilderness, you make a great adversary.
1. Trump said that he would appoint the BEST people to fill the vacancies, I would especially have expected that at the Department head level.
2. Trump selecting Carson with absolutely NO experience beyond that of a physician. Are we really selecting the best in regards to HUD?
3. Carson presides as head of an agency that Trump, based on his ideology and his budget, holds in firm derision.
4. Carson allows himself to be used by Trump, promoting the 'idea' of diversity in an administration that has proved hostile to its substance, while easily adapting to its form.
It is the old white guy bringing in a black token to support the image of diversity trick.
What so many don't realize, is that it is quite transparent to most of us, much like the "Emperor's New Clothes"?
By the way, I did not say "Uncle Tom"..."He is more than a "white man" in Blackface, unlike Ben Carson and others that I know. Being black often goes beyond mere skin color."
I repeat, can there be much more racist, disgusting thing to say? And no, you didn't use the term "Uncle Tom", but it was damned obvious.Nothing in this country is more difficult than to be a black conservative. Few people know or realize the resources spent by the Tea Party to elect Mia Love, as the first black republican in Congress as well as Tim Scott to be the first black Senator from South Carolina. Why the support? They're brilliant people. The mainstream media completely ignored the milestone of Condoleezza Rice being the first black, female Secretary of State. The left is a very racist organization. They hate conservatives, but they especially hate black conservatives. Ben Carson, Herman Cane, Allen West have all been subject of some of the most horrible things that could be said about a person because they were black and conservative. Not surprised about attacks on Ben Carson. How about the very unfair attacks on Clarence Thomas? This list goes on for the racist left.
You are so right. I would go even further. The left are more than racist. They would attack th very system that could improve many blacks - conservatism. Instead, they institute policies that will keeep blacks poor and uneducated and dependent on government and of course vote for democrats.
I am not convinced that conservatives could or want to do any better. You told me to sit and watch as Trump changes the dynamics against the Democrats and their "plantation politics" and watch as he actually generates jobs. I have yet to see that, but I have seen initiatives promoting many social services cuts to the most vulnerable.
I continue to wait, patiently....
Nothing in this country is more difficult than to be a black conservative. Few people know or realize the resources spent by the Tea Party to elect Mia Love, as the first black republican in Congress as well as Tim Scott to be the first black Senator from South Carolina. Why the support? They're brilliant people. The mainstream media completely ignored the milestone of Condoleezza Rice being the first black, female Secretary of State. The left is a very racist organization. They hate conservatives, but they especially hate black conservatives. Ben Carson, Herman Cane, Allen West have all been subject of some of the most horrible things that could be said about a person because they were black and conservative. Not surprised about attacks on Ben Carson. How about the very unfair attacks on Clarence Thomas? This list goes on for the racist left.
OK, Readmenow, do you have the courage to get this out into the open?
Yes, it is difficult to be a Black conservative relative to what conservatism is as it is currently defined in this culture. There is nothing wrong with Tim Scott or Mia Love if you are Republican and conservative. From their perspective, of course, they are spot on. I don't think that any of us ignored the significance and competence of Condoleezza Rice or Colin Powell and recognized that they were appointed into their posts by GW Bush. But even Powell and Rice resist Trump, today. Why are neither of them on board with him? We are of the left, of course we are going to take issue with conservatives regardless of their color. Hate is a strong word, conservatives are our adversaries that we have to defeat in the war of ideas within the public square. I think that conservatives have said some pretty mean things about President Obama, and many of those baseless attacks have been made by our current President. I think conservatives have been 'racist' in assuming that Obama received the overwhelming support of Blacks solely because he is Black. This does not take into account that Obama won over the Asians, Hispanics, Jews. So, does the fact that he is a Black man really weigh into why he won in 2008 and 2012? Blacks have not supported conservatives or Republican in modern times and there is a reason for that..."conservatives are our adversaries that we have to defeat in the war of ideas within the public square. " That's just it, you can not defeat a conservative in the war of ideas. That's why Bernie Sander supporters shoot Republican congressmen. That's why the Russia story was manufactured. That is why there is so much violence from the left. Berkeley leftists afraid to listen to conservatives. The recount of Trump backfired, protesting and violence his election night only hurt the left. Trying to intimidate the Electoral College only got more votes for Bernie. The constant violence against conservatives from the left is proof...you CAN NOT compete with us with conservative idea so you on the left use the only thing you have left...violence and intimidation. I now actually believe the term leftist means violent political thug. At the base of all the violence are nothing but pathetic cowards who can't accept America doesn't want what they're offering. It's time those on the left grow up.
Credence your comment about Ben Carson is one thing I see which tells me that some blacks (possibly you, in particular) go too far out of their way to ensure they will be looked at differently and negatively. How sad that someone of color is expected to play a certain role in order to be respected by others. I wouldn't say others in their community because it appears your ideas of the black community are narrow and prejudiced. Whether one agrees with Mr. Carson or not; to call him that is an insult to him and any other person who follows their own conscience and doesn't kowtow to some archaic sense of 'us against them'.
Correct , .....I am not black , but I can see racial bias from a mile away , no matter what color the accuser or the accused . Sad !
Credence your comment about Ben Carson is one thing I see which tells me that some blacks (possibly you, in particular) go too far out of their way to ensure they will be looked at differently and negatively.
------------------------
Unclear, how about elaborating a bit on this?
-----------------------
How sad that someone of color is expected to play a certain role in order to be respected by others.
------------------------
He has my respect, but he is a accomodationist , and in the age of Trump and the danger he poses toward the poor which is heavily represented by people of color, it is an accommodation that I cannot afford.
We had two great men at the turn of the 20th century, Booker T. Washington and W.E.B. DuBois. There was a struggle as one wanted compromise with the status quo of racial oppression reassuring the oppressors that our folks would work within their impossible impediments and bigotry to maintain harmony, the other resisted and demanded full rights without compromise.
I did not think that I had to bring up a century old example of the problem I and MOST Blacks have with Carson. While he is a spiritual man and an accomplished surgeon, that is not enough for our political support. From my perspective system needs reform in the proper direction and that requires constant agitation, not accommodation.
----------------------------------------
I wouldn't say others in their community because it appears your ideas of the black community are narrow and prejudiced. Whether one agrees with Mr. Carson or not; to call him that is an insult to him and any other person who follows their own conscience and doesn't kowtow to some archaic sense of 'us against them'.
---------------------------------------------
I am a Black person, so I am somewhat qualified to touch on the subject. Whether you want to admit it or not, 'us against them' is not out of style and goes beyond just racial matters. Yes, I was wrong to use such harsh language about someone who may actually believe that his appointment to the Department goes beyond the fact he has a black face and does not serves Trump politically.As long as you are apologizing for using such a derogatory term toward a black person who doesn't share your political ideology then....OK.
As to elaborating on that first comment I made, if you present yourself as prejudiced to the extent that no person of color can disagree with you politically, without you resorting to name calling; it does put you in a very negative light. And if you think there are still impossible impediments placed on black people I would love to hear you share them. .From where I am standing a black person has the same freedoms and opportunities that I have. From where I am standing a great deal of your argument to the contrary appears to be hogwash. I suppose you consider Obama an Uncle Tom also, since he got to be president of the United States with all o those impossible impediments in place.As long as you are apologizing for using such a derogatory term toward a black person who doesn't share your political ideology then....OK.
----------------------
As to elaborating on that first comment I made, if you present yourself as prejudiced to the extent that no person of color can disagree with you politically, without you resorting to name calling; it does put you in a very negative light.
----------------------
Everybody has an opinion, "an accomodationist" is not name calling it is just a description. It is a style or approach of which I disapprove.
----------------------------------
And if you think there are still impossible impediments placed on black people I would love to hear you share them.
--------------------------------
I used a early 20th century situation to define the terms, that was all. Things have become better since then, but at a tremendous cost.
-------------------------------
.From where I am standing a black person has the same freedoms and opportunities that I have. From where I am standing a great deal of your argument to the contrary appears to be hogwash. I suppose you consider Obama an Uncle Tom also, since he got to be president of the United States with all o those impossible impediments in place.
---------------------------------
Where you stand is not always the right place to really see or appreciate. Even though you are standing at the center of the universe with an unbiased view of all without blind spots, so you believe. I still remember our discussion about discussions about pre-WWII biases against the Japanese and Asians in general in the Northwest. The fact that you could not acknowledge racial problems between whites and Asians in the area during the period, speaks to your 'blind spots'. You see what you want to see, but don't we all? The fact that Obama won was a major milestone on how far we have come, but that does not mean that this is a 'post racial' society. Enter Donald Trump...I don't remember saying there wasn't racial bias. I think I was pointing out that it was more in line with economics. From what I had read there was quite a lot of animosity toward Japanese in the west who were doing well and the war was a convenient excuse to take away their prosperity.
You didn't use the word accomodationist. You used the term Uncle Tom. That is the derogatory term. But, you knew that.
I've never claimed that I was unbiased. What I have claimed is that as a part of a multicultural family. Although I cannot say that I have walked in shoes such as yours sometimes we have to admit that we get too bogged down in focusing on our old shoes and don't notice that there are many new and different pairs available to us.
Jack , I agree , C- is the most i would give Obama's presidency , His choice of an administration however , I would send him home with a note for his mother , please attend a special teacher parent conference to discuss Obama's poor choice of administration .
-He reignited old and healed wounds of racism to phony accusatory levels. --He drove economic wedges between upper and lower class --He has worked hard to amount to nothing in support of the working ,middle class except higher taxes , higher fees , higher energy prices , -- What Obama's collusion with the media has created in America is treasonous ,-- Obama has , since leaving office obstructed Trumps foriegn policies in increasing amounts .
I could go on and on !Just my opinion - I would give him a C. A just passing mark. He was present and on the job, acted presidential, well spoken. He was never a people's president. He seemed to be elusive, as was his wife. His policies were corrosive to many American's, and his decisions in regards to the Middle East made it possible for ISIS to grow, and become a huge threat to the world. He turned a blind eye on North Korea and Iran's Nuke programs. Both are now taking aimed, and almost ready to use nukes. Obama drew a red line in the sand in Syria, and when it was crossed sat by and did nothing when it was crossed, We as a nation under his lead has to sit back, and witnessed Genocide of the Syrian people. Do I need to mention Libya or the Benghazi disaster? As well as the many lies...
And how about that health care plan? I must also mention Obama's very last speech at the UN. It went on a painful 45 minutes, he received no applause at all. I can remember his very first speech at the UN he got 12 standing ovations, he literally brought the house down. In my opinion he all but ruined America's reputation on the world's stage.
Yes I think a C is fair, he just was not capable of handling the job of President. He was a do nothing President.Jack - wth the current state of affairs, I don't think anyone could grade Obama yet - wait until the probes on all his cronies are finished and we find out who killed Seth Rich
By the way,
Here are my grades for past presidents in my adult life.
Nixon - D
Ford - C
Carter - D
Reagan - A minus
Bush Sr. - B
Clinton - B
Bush Jr. - B minus
Obama - C minus1. Nixon - incomplete brought about the end of Vietnam was so if I needed to grade him then for the work he finished then C+ to B- Anyone living in Ohio should approve of the clean air act and the end of the polluted Cuyahoga river burning.
2. Ford -D his complete bungling of the economy including the oil crisis.
3. Carter - Incomplete to a D. too many promises not enough results. He stood by while the whole middle east fell apart.
4. Reagan – B he was the perfect president for his time all long as you aren’t a deficit hawk. If you are then you most likely saw the 80’s as the beginning of the end. He also started what would later become NAFTA
5. GWH Bush- incomplete a B for foreign policy a C- to D for domestic. He also Had a hand in NAFTA
6. Clinton – B was the perfect president for his times. Crappy husband and treated women wrong (just ask all the big haired women he supposedly assaulted) but that has nothing to do with being a president. Signed NAFTA into law
7. G “W” Bush- C started a war in Iraq on false information, +Started Homeland Security and - TSA given way too much power Also not beloved by deficit hawks.
8. Obama – an incomplete to a C- He promised the sun and the moon and all the stars in the sky to get elected. Lied to the people (you can keep your doctor) forcing Obama care on us without even reading it. Getmo still open.
I don’t think however it is fair to blame him for the unrest in the country (except then he would speak and take the side against the police without all the facts). He could read a good speech (commander and speech podium and Chief) but presidents don’t write their own speeches anymore.
It’s become too popular to pick on most of these presidents with their faults and ignore what they did for the country. Nixon is a favorite of the comedians and the left (as if there is a difference) mostly because they think they forced him out. They blame him for a war he ended rather than such people as Eisenhower, Kennedy and Johnson who helped either increase the war or prolong it. President Obama will be remembered for a lot of things. It’s just not us to decide what those things will be. That will be left up to our descendants.
- ahorsebackposted 7 years ago
0" ........Is it the old white guy bringing in a black token trick ..........?
What it is, is always the race bait trick by prejudiced forum dwellers .
Carson is brighter than you or I and thats for sure .The problem is that we are all ignorant, just in different subjects. Wasn't it the late Will Rogers that said that? Ben Carson is not smarter than us all, in all matters....
Are you or were you ever a brain surgeon ? Isn't that what Dr Carson was ? Because he isn't a polished political skater like Obama , not a polished B.S. er like Hilary Clinton , not a street fighter politician doesn't mean he isn't brilliant . Personally I believe a lot more Americans could re-learn the truest professional manners that he carries with him everywhere .
I would have voted Ben Carson for President .I did not say that he was not brilliant in HIS CHOSEN PROFESSION. That does not mean that he knows it all and can pick up by osmosis that which most of us have to acquire by experience. But again, that is the way of the Right, acquiring knowledge from thin air while confronting scholars with the experience and education to truly be an expert.
I would not have voted for him because he is a rightwinged conservative.Credence2,
That does not make any sense. Just because Carson is a conservative black, you would vote against him? Why? What if he could help blacks become more self reliant and rise above the inner cities by their own bootstrap? What if conservatism is the right message at this time? What if you could gain more wealth under a conservative government? What if all our lives could be improved?
Guess what, all that I said has happened before under a conservative Ronald Reagan. I guess you would not have voted for him either... sad.No, Jacklee, it makes perfect sense, I am a liberal/progressive. I can't support hard right conservatives whatever color they happen to be. That goes back to Alan Keyes in the 1980s. I don't vote for color but for those whose philosophy and ideology more closely mirror my own values. I am going to need a lot more evidence before I can believe that "conservatism" is the attitude whose time has come. A lot of 'what ifs', Jacklee. I can only judge them based on their past performance and there has been nothing to redeem them there. Black folks and people of color did not particularly fare well under Reagan. And no, before I have a rightwing cowboy type in the White House, I felt much more comfortable voting for Carter in a second term back in 1980. I regret that he did not win.
You are in the minority then (not just in skin color). Most people agree with me that Reagan was a great president and it was his conservatism and his believe in America that has made his administration great. A rising tide raise all ships..., peace through strength, limited federal government, cutting taxes to spur economic boom...
You don't have to believe me. Just go and do your own research. Reagan helped the black community more than you gave him credit for. He also help free the millions of people trapped in the former soviet union under communism. The liberal progressive left will never admit this. Reagan was the one that ended the cold war, not Gorbachov... He and Thatcher and Pope John Paul II.
Carter was a good man but a disaster as a President. The fact that you fail to see it, at the time and voted for him, should tell you something. How mis calibrated are your sensibilities...
I don't mean this as a disrespect. Don't take it personally.
I would make the same observation as I see it if it was anyone else.You are in the minority then (not just in skin color). Most people agree with me that Reagan was a great president and it was his conservatism and his believe in America that has made his administration great.
-----------------------------------
I don't know what circles you travel in? Not most people, but most white people with whom you associate believe that Reagan was a great president. Seriously, how many black folks did you know that were foaming at the mouth in effusive praise for the greatness of Ronald Reagan? That is a pretty small subset of the whole. But, I have to admit that there has been worse, i.e., Harding, Nixon, Trump....
---------------------------------
A rising tide raise all ships..., peace through strength, limited federal government, cutting taxes to spur economic boom...
You don't have to believe me. Just go and do your own research. Reagan helped the black community more than you gave him credit for. He also help free the millions of people trapped in the former soviet union under communism.
-------------------------------------
Reagan attacked programs that were designed to assist the poor and indigent. Unfortunately, a disproportionate portion of the black community were poor. So, whose side did you think that we were going to take? He is the father of deficit spending in modern times, with the beginning of massive national debt with his tax cuts and military expansion and a naïve idea that spending cuts were possible to balance to the extent that he required them.
No, Gorbachev was the hero. Since the cold war, his glasnost and perestroika set him apart from previous Soviet apparatchiks from Stalin thru Andropov. There was no reason to believe that Reagan would have been any more successful than previous presidents who operated during the Cold War. Gorbachev made the difference and Reagan just had the luck of the Irish to be in the right place at the right time. We have had our fair share of scandal with him regarding Iran-Contra and the cover ups. The fact that Gorbachev backed away from the traditional Soviet hard line was why the Cold War ended.
Carter was just unlucky, the Iran crisis dominated a large part of his presidency and his failure to get the hostages out along with being blamed for a dismal economy was the reason he could not get reelected.
What I see is that I don't trust conservatives and their philosophies generally, and that applies to Trump and the current crop of GOP legislators, specifically. With what Reagan claimed and represented for me and mine, Carter was the only acceptable choice.
Nothing personnel, you are simply on the opposite side of the globe from where I sit and there are plenty of people here on this side with me. Can you say that we are all not aware of who and what we support and why?Credence2, so by your own words, Reagan was lucky and Carter was unlucky...
Now Credence2, you knew it would take a Reagan reference to draw me into a "rate the president" thread didn't you. That's almost a bit underhanded. ;-)
You are right that Gorbachev was a hero of the moment - regarding the end of the Cold War, but so was Pres. Reagan. His actions contributed equally with Gorbachev's to achieve that end. It was not his "luck of the Irish" that placed him in the moment, it was the duo of Reagan and Gorbachev that created the moment. I agree with your assessment of Gorbachev's actions, but your refusal to recognize Reagan's equally important contribution to their success is telling.
As for Carter, I think you are right about the effects of the Iranian hostage crisis too, but, although it dominated his last year in office, it was really only the 'final nail in the coffin' for his presidency. There were plenty of other mistakes and inadequacies in his performance - before the hostage crisis. Bad luck was not the cause of his failed re-election bid. But, like your short-changing of Pres. Reagan's accomplishments, it is also telling that you would mis-credit Pres. Carter's failures and missteps to being "unlucky."
j.. just sayin'
GANow Credence2, you knew it would take a Reagan reference to draw me into a "rate the president" thread didn't you. That's almost a bit underhanded. ;-)
A true Reaganaut, are we?
You are right that Gorbachev was a hero of the moment - regarding the end of the Cold War, but so was Pres. Reagan.
Really, GA, think about it. Reagan was the standard Cold Warrior in the mold of every President since Harry Truman.
We have had; European airlifts, iron curtains, containment brush wars on the Asian continent, Cuban Missile Crises, communist insurgents, SALT I, II, the globe divided between the Communist or its sympathizers and the 'free world', and lets not forget "mutually assured destruction" So Reagan brings something to the table so much different from his predecessors that the iron curtain falls to tatters? Outside of some science fiction fantasy fit for a comic book(Star Wars) what more did he do to promote the outcome? Surely the hardline Soviet leadership was not moved. Do you think that what happened in 1989 would have happened under a Stalin, Khrushchev or Brezhnev? The only variable that changed this story was Gorbachev, a man determined to remake the relationship between the Soviet Union and the United States and the West. He was a NEW variable that had never existed before. So, I have the opinion that Reagan's contribution was minimal at best, more like a facilitator or MC.
As for Carter, the biggest problem with him was the economy and runaway inflation at the time. Failure in regards to this area cost GHW Bush a second term despite his Desert Storm success. While I don't blame Reagan, the timing of the hostage release was one hell of a coincidence and benefit for Reagan. After all, Carter did all the leg work and Reagan took the credit.
Just a little take on recent history, I guess....Well bud, Since you asked that I "think about it," (and I did), then I get to shift into lecture mode.
*... and this is 'meaty' one I am glad to get into.
To your last point first. Regarding Pres. Reagan "taking the credit." It is more a case of him being given the credit. It was the Iranians that held the hostage plane on the runway until the moment President-elect Reagan was sworn in. It was not prearranged by us. Multiple sources, including Carter administration sources, have attested to this.
Secondly, on Inauguration day, President-elect Reagan had arranged a line of message runners, from the inner workings of the White House, to the Inauguration seating and podium area, that would alert him the minute the hostage plane left the ground so he could announce it. He was waiting to give Pres. Carter credit, right up to the point of being sworn in - he didn't "take" any credit for their release.
Now to Pres. Reagan's importance in the Gorbachev issue. (you probably know a lot of this, but I do want to be complete)
Pres. Reagan's first "Cold War" interaction with Soviet leadership started with Brezhnev. He later sent a letter offering a summit to Andropov, (Brezhnev's successor, re the SALT agreement). He also let Chernenko, (Andropov's successor), know, (publicly), that he was open to a summit with the Soviet leader. But, if you remember your history, you will remember that when asked why he hadn't summitted(sp), with a Soviet leader before Gorbachev, his response was that "... they kept dying on me." Which was the truth.
So Pres. Reagan was 'open' to meeting with Soviet "Cold War" leadership, but between crises, (like the Poland Warsaw/Solidarity repression), it just wasn't politically or realistically feasible.
Then came Gorbachev. And perestroika and glasnost, (as you mentioned). Pres. Reagan recognized the opportunity and had a series of letter, (both public and private. Did you know that Reagan had private correspondence with Gorbachev - beyond the official correspondence?*), communications with him. Pres. Reagan was the first to suggest a summit, and Gorbachev agreed.
*It should be noted that in that private correspondence Gorbachev stated that he believed it was their good personal relationship that would allow them to achieve progress in lessening the danger of a "nuclear holocaust." That doesn't sound like the luck of being in the right place at the right time to me.
It is well known, through various source's recounting, that the two men developed a very strong personal relationship at the very first summit. (they agreed to a second and third summit, unexpectedly, in a personal meeting - without their advisers)
It is also well known that Pres. Reagan offered much more in nuclear arms limitations than any president before him. But he still didn't give Gorbachev a free pass. Surely you remember that "...tear down this wall" speech.
As you can see, Pres. Reagan wasn't just "lucky" to be meeting with Gorbachev. He had been courting meetings with Soviet Cold War leaders from the start. And he didn't just gladly accept the benefits of Gorbachev's good will, (as the most realistic Soviet leader), the Soviet Union was collapsing, and Gorby knew it.
As for Reagan's "comic book" Star Wars defense chip, it was so important that Gorbachev agreed to every point the U.S. wanted in the SALT II agreement at their Reykjavík, (Iceland), summit - as long as the U.S. dropped its Star Wars defense plan.
Of course you will remember the news shots of Pres. Reagan walking angrily out of the summit when Gorbachev stated his condition that Star Wars research be dropped. Sounds kind of important to me - and Gorbachev, and Reagan. At least it appears Gorbachev thought it was more than a "comic book" idea.
And finally, I think Gorbachev was a lot more interested in saving his collapsing economy as the reason he wanted better Soviet/US relations, than his enlightenment that the U.S. and the West was his new standard to shoot for.
So, by my thinking, I think my first response was more correct than your "luck of the Irish" characterization. But I will make you a deal. If you doubt anything I have recounted, I will dig into my readings and supply you with "chapter and verse," complete with sources and page citations.
In exchange for that effort, you have to promise to send me a good Reagan book that I don't already have. (and remember, being the "Reaganite" that I am, I do have more than a few Reagan books already)
Want to 'double-down'?
GA"To your last point first. Regarding Pres. Reagan "taking the credit." It is more a case of him being given the credit. It was the Iranians that held the hostage plane on the runway until the moment President-elect Reagan was sworn in. It was not prearranged by us. Multiple sources, including Carter administration sources, have attested to this."
--------------------------------
I will give you this one, as I really don't think that Reagan had a devious nature and was basically an honorable person, despite his ideological bent on things.
--------------------------------
Now to Pres. Reagan's importance in the Gorbachev issue. (you probably know a lot of this, but I do want to be complete)
Pres. Reagan's first "Cold War" interaction with Soviet leadership started with Brezhnev. He later sent a letter offering a summit to Andropov, (Brezhnev's successor, re the SALT agreement). He also let Chernenko, (Andropov's successor), know, (publicly), that he was open to a summit with the Soviet leader. But, if you remember your history, you will remember that when asked why he hadn't summitted(sp), with a Soviet leader before Gorbachev, his response was that "... they kept dying on me." Which was the truth.
---------------------------------
Yes, I remember the Soviet Premiers dying with a year or 2 of one another during the early eighties. I had no doubt that Mr. Reagan was working on the success of our détente relationship during this period. But, did not Nixon, Ford and Carter work toward those same ends, the continued success of our détente? I never doubted that Mr. Reagan was open to negotiation with the Soviets but so were all of his predecessors.
Yes, Ronald Reagan was an affable man and with the right fellow sitting across the table from him, history was made. But, I seriously doubt that he would have made all the strides that he did with a Brezhnev or any of the 'old guard'. I could not see the establishment of such a congenial relationship with an Andropov, could you? Because with Gorbachev, there was a new sort of Soviet leader and opportunities were opened that never would have been, otherwise. Gorbachev was the kind of leader and man that made it possible for Reagan to reach out. I am not surprised, my point is just that like you said, Gorbachev recognized that the 'jig was up' and the costs of continuing to be stalwarts of the hammer and sickle was no longer worth the benefits. I think that he was looking for any way to ratchet down the terror while still saving face. Thus, the request that the U.S. reciprocate by putting "Star Wars" back on the shelf. I am sure that under similar circumstances, Carter or a Nixon would have taken advantage of the situation to lesson tensions between us. Anyone that seriously studied the technology behind the proposed Star Wars could clearly see that this was well within the realm of science fiction, especially during the 1980's, not to mention the costs to even deploy such a thing. The physicists questioned its actual defensive value. I am sure that the Soviet physicists were aware of that as well.
And we also appreciated that Gorbachev was much more flexible than previous Soviet Premiers. Reagan was a true cold warrior who did his job and found ways to reduce stress between us and the Soviets. When I said that he was 'lucky', I meant it in a sense that the right man sat across from the table who wanted to change things in radical way, that was Mr. Gorbachev. The kinds of concessions that Reagan got were only possible with a Gorbachev on the other side of the table.
-----------------------
I have no doubt about your research, you are the consummate historian. I do confess that I do not have many publications that focus on the life and the of the 40th President. But, I like to think that with much reading and engagement of the news during the period and the time immediately after, I am not exactly untried. I am already working on the one book I have already giving me a perspective on this man, Ronald Reagan.
In exchange for that effort, you have to promise to send me a good Reagan book that I don't already have. (and remember, being the "Reaganite" that I am, I do have more than a few Reagan books already)Well Cred, it appears your "luck of the Irish" has mellowed into just "lucky." But let's let "lucky" move on down the road.
I agree with all your comments about Gorbachev. We, and the world were "lucky," (ok, that's the last one), that Gorbachev was the Soviet leader at the time. The Soviet Union was crashing, and as you say, the previous hardliners would probably have just accelerated the crash, and taken part of the world with it.
But contrary to your opinion, I do not think Nixon, Johnson, or Carter, could have reached the rapport with Gorbachev that would have produced a similar success as Reagan achieved. Nor do I believe Nixon or Johnson, (Carter, maybe), would have been as forward with nuclear arms reduction proposals as Reagan was. I will stop beating this horse with one last lash - just as you say that Gorbachev was the right man at the right time, so do I believe Reagan was.
As for the feasibility of Star Wars, it was a very serious proposal, even if the Soviets suspected, (at the time their spies couldn't be sure), the technology wasn't there yet, they could easily have been considering it with their experience of Pres. Kennedy's launch of our space program. Look how quickly we developed that, a manned lunar landing - starting practically from scratch.
I really think you should give Reagan's Star Wars program's importance a little more weight, relative to its part in ending the Cold War. There are plenty of sources that say the Soviets were very afraid of its finished capabilities. Gorbachev even said that to the Soviets, it would be considered a First Strike offensive advantage because it would nullify the Soviet's first response wave of missiles.
Of course I wasn't intending to imply you were "untried," or uninformed Cred, it just may have sounded that way because you opened the door for me to go off on one of my favorite topics. Opportunities to really 'get into the topic' are rare around here now-a-days. And I did warn you that your challenge to me to "think about it" automatically induced a shift into lecture mode. ;-)
GAThat's OK, GA, this kinda stuff is up my alley as well.
-----------------------------
I agree with all your comments about Gorbachev. We, and the world were "lucky," (ok, that's the last one), that Gorbachev was the Soviet leader at the time. The Soviet Union was crashing, and as you say, the previous hardliners would probably have just accelerated the crash, and taken part of the world with it.
------------------------
Exactly, scorched Earth would have been the response. They would have increased their nuclear arsenal and been more provocative on the world scene in response and the outcome would not bode well for any of us.
------------
But contrary to your opinion, I do not think Nixon, Johnson, or Carter, could have reached the rapport with Gorbachev that would have produced a similar success as Reagan achieved. Nor do I believe Nixon or Johnson, (Carter, maybe), would have been as forward with nuclear arms reduction proposals as Reagan was. I will stop beating this horse with one last lash - just as you say that Gorbachev was the right man at the right time, so do I believe Reagan was.
---------------------------------
I don't know, I might see your point with Johnson, but Nixon opened up China and I am sure that at the scale of concessions offered by Gorbachev, he or Carter would have been on board. I just have a harder time seeing as much difference among American presidents that would have made the difference as compared with the introduction of a Mikhail Gorbachev. Why do you think that Reagan had a unique rapport with Gorbachev that could not have been enjoyed by at least a couple of his predecessors?
-------------------------------------------
As for the feasibility of Star Wars, it was a very serious proposal, even if the Soviets suspected, (at the time their spies couldn't be sure), the technology wasn't there yet, they could easily have been considering it with their experience of Pres. Kennedy's launch of our space program. Look how quickly we developed that, a manned lunar landing - starting practically from scratch.
-------
Yes, there may be some similarity there, because when Kennedy set a goal for manned lunar landing before 1970 in 1961, we couldn't even successfully get rockets of the pad without explosions. The moon? Everyone thought that he had to have been nuts. It was tremendous challenge, but also a big gamble having so much confidence in American know-how. But we had 9 years to get it done. I don't really think that anyone was expecting the Star Wars program to take an undetermined amount of time to develop and deploy if it were meant to act as a reasonable deterrent in negotiations at the time. With the daunting technological challenges that had to be overcome before we could even think of such a thing, it would probably be much longer then anyone could expect. The military has only recently had success with directed energy weapons in very controlled test environments and this is 2017. Laser defense systems in orbit that could shoot down enemy warhead missiles within critical time frames between launch and reaching the target, in the 1980s or even 1990's? That is a stretch. Gorbachev may have been intimidated because he allowed himself to be and wanted to seriously end the balance of terror, but can't appear to the Politburo as weak in giving away the store. Compared to the actual state of the art, Gorbachev could just as well of said to his countrymen that the U.S. was developing warp drive capability and matter-energy transportation devices. Then there was the political deterrent for us, isn't there some sort of compact about weapons in space that had been agreed upon internationally? Having several devices of this nature in low earth orbit would open the US to much criticism and reprisals coming from other directions.Cred, relative to your thoughts about Nixon and Johnson, I will stick with my perspective. I have probably done as much reading on Nixon as I have on Reagan, but not so much on Johnson. Carter just never piqued my interest.
To set the standard for comparison; nothing I have read about Reagan indicated he was anything like the political animals, (a description, not a condemnation), that Johnson and Nixon were. His policy motives were always what was best for America first. Whether those policies were good or bad, at least his primary motive was to benefit Americans. With Reagan, what you see is what you got.
The same can't be said for Nixon or Johnson. Both also made great and sincere efforts to promote and improve our nation, but both also had political self-interest motives that affected their "good of the country" actions.
Most of us have probably read about Nixon's extreme dislike for face to face meetings with people - outside his tight inner staff circle - and his paranoia and 'enemies' lists. These aren't partisan attacks, history shows them to be facts. He gets, (and deserves), much credit for his China efforts, but you can bet that a "what's in it for me" thought was sitting right beside every "what's in it for America" motivation. particularly after he left office. There is much to indicate his post-office China initiatives were almost primarily motivated to repair his political legacy.
Consider Gorbachev sitting across the table from that man, a man of cunning, vs. sitting across from a man with the sincerity of only a motivation to benefit the security of both nations. Leaders at these levels aren't dummies. They can read people as well as you or I can read a newspaper. I do not believe Nixon could have achieved what Reagan did. I think Gorbachev's reactions and responses would have been much different.
Johnson, on the other hand, I am less sure about. He is said to have been a bit insecure, in the respect of always seeking affirmation for his actions. So he may have also had a "how's this going to reflect on me" thought tingeing his motivations. I think Gorbachev might have sensed this, and might have considered him a bit easier to 'push'.
My bottom line is that Gorbachev sensed he was dealing with a principled man with sincere motives. I don't think he would have gotten the same feeling from Nixon, (definitely), and Johnson, (probably). Which means I think his actions would have been more political than they were with Reagan.
Another reason I think the Gorbachev/Reagan combination was so fruitful is that Gorbachev, apparently, had unprecedented independence from the Politburo - relative to past modern Soviet leaders. He had enough support there to be able to consider its directives as advice, instead of orders.
Back to Star Wars, I still think you underestimate the seriousness with which the Soviet leadership viewed it. Here too, there is a lot of evidence to support the view that the Soviets considered it a valid threat to their "First Strike" capabilities. Which in their minds meant if was a massive American offensive advantage. Further support of my view is that at the time, the Soviet's intelligence networks were not able to determine just where we were relative to the needed technological advances. They just didn't know how far we really were from being able to develop it.
Now, here's a question for you, relative to Nixon and Johnson. Remember the Iceland summit that I mentioned Reagan angrily walked out of? Well here's the story. Pres. Reagan and his negotiating team were surprised about how much agreement had been achieved through the first day and a half. They entered the final day almost ecstatic that the Soviets were agreeing to almost everything the Americans asked for.
Then, at the final afternoon session when Gorbachev and Reagan met to sign those fantastic agreements - Gorbachev presented the condition that all those agreements depended on Reagan agreeing to drop the Star Wars program. He would not sign without that agreement.. That is how important Star Wars was to the Soviets.
*side note; nothing had been said about this condition during negotiations. That is why Reagan was so mad. Gorbachev had presented it at the last minute - prior to the signings.
Now, your question Jim, (yes, I know you are not "Jim"), should you decide to accept it. Do you think Nixon or Johnson would have also walked out and gone home - rather than bend a conviction?
GACred, relative to your thoughts about Nixon and Johnson, I will stick with my perspective. I have probably done as much reading on Nixon as I have on Reagan, but not so much on Johnson. Carter just never piqued my interest.
--------------------------
Most interesting, GA, I respect your point of view. We can't leave Carter out because he was involved in the SALT program. Both Johnson and Nixon were professional politicians with years of experience throughout Government. Nixon, Mr. 5 o'clock shadow, would have been suspicious as to why so much was being offered by the USSR in exchange for relatively little. Even Johnson who was snared in Southeast Asia would jump at a good deal when he saw it. I still believe that Gorbachev was desparate to consummate an agreement for virtually little if any in exchange as concession for all the reasons we spoke of earlier. No responsible American Chief Executive could afford to let this opportunity slip by.
--------------------------
To set the standard for comparison; nothing I have read about Reagan indicated he was anything like the political animals, (a description, not a condemnation), that Johnson and Nixon were. His policy motives were always what was best for America first. Whether those policies were good or bad, at least his primary motive was to benefit Americans. With Reagan, what you see is what you got.
--------------------------
Reagan was the genuine article, pro American almost to the point of jingoism. But, I have no reason to believe that neither Johnson nor Nixon did not take an America First tack in foreign policy. Can you think of any post WWII President that really did not? The relative success of Reagan in this arena was due to his personality and the introduction of Gorbachev on to the stage. This fortuitous combination never really appeared before, when the right men, and timing came together to make history. The reasons that it did not was the intransigence of previous Soviet Leaders, could I say that in all fairness?
-------------
The same can't be said for Nixon or Johnson. Both also made great and sincere efforts to promote and improve our nation, but both also had political self-interest motives that affected their "good of the country" actions.
-----------------
Political self-interest motives? How would that indicate that either man would 'deep six' an opportunity to gain so much toward reducing tensions in this Cold War?
--------------
Most of us have probably read about Nixon's extreme dislike for face to face meetings with people - outside his tight inner staff circle - and his paranoia and 'enemies' lists. These aren't partisan attacks, history shows them to be facts. He gets, (and deserves), much credit for his China efforts, but you can bet that a "what's in it for me" thought was sitting right beside every "what's in it for America" motivation. particularly after he left office. There is much to indicate his post-office China initiatives were almost primarily motivated to repair his political legacy.
---------------------------------------------------
Yes, Nixon had a suspicious nature, but he wasn't stupid. If there was much to gain in exchange for little, I am sure that he could become congenial quickly enough. Yes, even true for Nixon who was castigated by Eisenhower, embarrassed before Kennedy, defeated in California, submerged in the heart of the Vietnam Conflict and finally forced to step down from the Presidency in disgrace. So, looking at Reagan, if I recall, he saw this Star Wars program as more than an American response to Soviet nuclear attack but as a solution to the ICBM and a solution for all time for mankind. History is replete with people who said that any particular weapon or defense would make war inconceivable. Also, the fact that he really believed that the opposition would not see this American initiative as an attempt to acquire a "First Strike" capacity, resigning itself to a Pax-Americana solution, I found both naive and irritating even during that time. A drastic change in direction from the world of real-politik with Nixon and Kissenger.
----------------------------------------------------
Consider Gorbachev sitting across the table from that man, a man of cunning, vs. sitting across from a man with the sincerity of only a motivation to benefit the security of both nations. Leaders at these levels aren't dummies. They can read people as well as you or I can read a newspaper. I do not believe Nixon could have achieved what Reagan did. I think Gorbachev's reactions and responses would have been much different.
-------------------------------------------------
I have to respectfully disagree on this point. Carter would have done well with Gorbachev, as a man without the 'edge' that you may have found in Richard Nixon. I still believe that Gorbachev was offering a 'fire sale' open to any reasonable bid.
-------------------------------------------
Johnson, on the other hand, I am less sure about. He is said to have been a bit insecure, in the respect of always seeking affirmation for his actions. So he may have also had a "how's this going to reflect on me" thought tingeing his motivations. I think Gorbachev might have sensed this, and might have considered him a bit easier to 'push'.
------------
Yes, his insecurity was revealed a great deal in his relationship with the Kennedys'. He wanted to be liked. He did a great deal to promote Civil Rights in his own right, saying that he intended to "out Kennedy Kennedy". When the riots came in the late 1960's and Dr. King turned against him in regards to Vietnam, LBJ was hurt and took it personally. Would he have not taken another opportunity to be liked and revered in the same way regarding foreign policy as he attempted to do on the domestic stage? It would have surely helped him divert public attention from the morass that was Vietnam.
------------------------------
My bottom line is that Gorbachev sensed he was dealing with a principled man with sincere motives. I don't think he would have gotten the same feeling from Nixon, (definitely), and Johnson, (probably). Which means I think his actions would have been more political than they were with Reagan.
_______
But, certainly Carter and less likely Johnson perhaps would not have walked away. Gorbachev was willing to trust Reagan and his concepts, because Reagan himself believed them as more than just a bargaining chip. Reagan's naivete was confused for sincerity, but he had that as well. And like I said earlier, Gorbachev was desparate for a solution, while holding up the Soviet Empire with bailing wire and bubblegum. How do you think that the other men being 'political' would have affected the outcome in an adverse way?
---------------
Another reason I think the Gorbachev/Reagan combination was so fruitful is that Gorbachev, apparently, had unprecedented independence from the Politburo - relative to past modern Soviet leaders. He had enough support there to be able to consider its directives as advice, instead of orders.
--------------------------------------
So, why did the Politboro give Gorbachev so long a leash? The relationship was fruitful from the American standpoint as Gorbachev was making an unprecedent amount of concessions. I think that it was aware to them, the Politboro, of the dire state of Soviet affairs and perhaps they realize that massive retaliation, their solutions in the past, had run dry
-------------------
Back to Star Wars, I still think you underestimate the seriousness with which the Soviet leadership viewed it. Here too, there is a lot of evidence to support the view that the Soviets considered it a valid threat to their "First Strike" capabilities. Which in their minds meant if was a massive American offensive advantage. Further support of my view is that at the time, the Soviet's intelligence networks were not able to determine just where we were relative to the needed technological advances. They just didn't know how far we really were from being able to develop it.
------------------------
Perhaps, your point is well taken. But there was debate about the practicality of such a system as Star Wars at the point of conception. I could not help to have heard much of the debate during the eighties. I have a hard time believing that Soviet phycisists were not knowlegeable enough in this area to determine to a reasonable extent what was in fact within "state of the art" and what was not.
--------------------------------------------
Now, here's a question for you, relative to Nixon and Johnson. Remember the Iceland summit that I mentioned Reagan angrily walked out of? Well here's the story. Pres. Reagan and his negotiating team were surprised about how much agreement had been achieved through the first day and a half. They entered the final day almost ecstatic that the Soviets were agreeing to almost everything the Americans asked for. Then, at the final afternoon session when Gorbachev and Reagan met to sign those fantastic agreements - Gorbachev presented the condition that all those agreements depended on Reagan agreeing to drop the Star Wars program. He would not sign without that agreement.. That is how important Star Wars was to the Soviets.
*side note; nothing had been said about this condition during negotiations. That is why Reagan was so mad. Gorbachev had presented it at the last minute - prior to the signings. Now, your question Jim, (yes, I know you are not "Jim"), should you decide to accept it. Do you think Nixon or Johnson would have also walked out and gone home - rather than bend a conviction?
-----------------------------------
I remember that situation. I think that Nixon, Johnson and Carter would have weighed the true value of Star Wars as a bargaining chip relative to the real time concessions being made by Gorbachev and agree to shelve the program in exchange. That is what I would have done.
A little about Carter. While Reagan created the grand vision and had his staff attend to the details, Carter, the opposite, was extremely detail oriented about all of his initiatives. His problem was that he focused on the tree rather than the forest. It is often true that the whole is more than the sum of its component parts. While Reagan was an optimist but not a physicist, Carter not being a physicist would have just as well have been studying the concepts to know almost as much as the scientists did about it. Afterwards, he may have come to the conclusion that Star Wars would not be a bargaining chip worth passing up all the concessions Gorbachev was making.You present good and valid points Credence2, except, perhaps, for the one about "Reagan's naivete was confused for sincerity..." and the emphasis you place on Gorbachev's weak position.
I have a different perspective, but I don't think yours is unreasonable to hold.
I guess we have to let this go, jackclee has noticed we hijacked his thread.
GA[Previously Posted]
[edit added]
But... but... jackclee is off on tangents too, so I thought I would sneak back...
Regarding your insistence that Gorbachev was having a fire sale, and Nixon or Johnson would have seen the value of the trade-off... they would not have had the bargaining chip of Star Wars, and that was the reason Gorbachev was willing to go so far - to kill Star Wars.
Anyway, I do see the reasoning, but I think your resistance to giving Pres. Reagan any more credit than just being in the right place at the right time is ideologically driven. You can only go so far when it comes to conservative ideas or actions. ;-)
Relative to your Crater comments, (which would also suit Clinton), I don't think our president should be a micro-manager. But that is another thread too.
GABut... but... jackclee is off on tangents too, so I thought I would sneak back...
--------
I hope that he doesn't mind too much.
--------
Regarding your insistence that Gorbachev was having a fire sale, and Nixon or Johnson would have seen the value of the trade-off... they would not have had the bargaining chip of Star Wars, and that was the reason Gorbachev was willing to go so far - to kill Star Wars.
----------------------------
No, my presumption was based on the circumstance that both Nixon or Johnson DID have a Star Wars bargaining chip to work with. What would they have done with it?
---------------------------
Anyway, I do see the reasoning, but I think your resistance to giving Pres. Reagan any more credit than just being in the right place at the right time is ideologically driven. You can only go so far when it comes to conservative ideas or actions. ;-)
----------------------------
No, again, I give Reagan credit and it is not fair for me to look at this other than objectively. I just don't see Reagan as terribly unique, or as the sole magic ingredient in this circumstance, that's all. Yes, I had problems with Reagan on other fronts but I won't judge him unfairly.
---------------------------
Relative to your Crater comments, (which would also suit Clinton), I don't think our president should be a micro-manager. But that is another thread too.
--------------------------
Yes, I agree, the job of the President is not that of a "bean counter". Reagan was more successful than Carter because he understood that.
Obviously you wouldn't vote for him for that and many other reasons as well , The problem IS however that scholars , intellectuals , professors do not in themselves contain wisdom , motivation nor leadership skills , Obama proved that over and over again .Hilary proved that over and over again A liberal characteristic however is to NOT let wisdom and leadership get in the way of great intellect .
The lefts problem is in that your leadership always comes out of our tax based and tax funded education institutions that become your ruling class . Liberal Intellectuals that can mold minds but not economies , they can brainwash students but not entire populations of adults , they can articulate lies and evade truth but not discern the difference between them , Maybe the left is idol struck or celebrity bitten in the inner minds . A genius like Dr Carson comes along and speaks softly and you think he's weak , The ideology of the left is so shallow that ,if there is no -D prefix in the name , collective blindness attacks from the center out and spreads across the collected crowds . If you think that ivory towers alone produce leadership , that's your second political mistake , First mistake ? You voted for Obama and Clinton .
A plumber would have been a better president , a carpenter a better secretary of state .no insult to plumbers or nail-benders ."Obviously you wouldn't vote for him for that and many other reasons as well"
------------------------------------------
No, the primary reason that I told you is that Carson subscribes to the rightwing view of things and I do not. That is all the 'reason' that I need. So, we just don't vote for anybody just because they are Black.
-----------------------------------------
" The problem IS however that scholars , intellectuals , professors do not in themselves contain wisdom , motivation nor leadership skills ,"
-------------------------------------------
Who says that leadership and wisdom is inconsistent with scholarship, another theory?
------------------------------------
"Obama proved that over and over again"
---------------------------
What short comings Obama had has nothing to do with his 'scholarship, but more a personality and style that was far too congenial toward obstinate adversaries.
-------------------------
" A liberal characteristic however is to NOT let wisdom and leadership get in the way of great intellect"
-----------------------------------
Another interesting theory, it is far from universally accepted. You will have to do better.
-----------------------------------------
The lefts problem is in that your leadership always comes out of our tax based and tax funded education institutions that become your ruling class . Liberal Intellectuals that can mold minds but not economies , they can brainwash students but not entire populations of adults , they can articulate lies and evade truth but not discern the difference between them.
-------------------------------------------
So for conservatives, ignorance is a virtue? After the 2008 election, I heard many rightwingers accuse Obama of being overeducated. Is being stupid better?
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Maybe the left is idol struck or celebrity bitten in the inner minds . A genius like Dr Carson comes along and speaks softly and you think he's weak , The ideology of the left is so shallow that ,if there is no -D prefix in the name , collective blindness attacks from the center out and spreads across the collected crowds . If you think that ivory towers alone produce leadership , that's your second political mistake , First mistake ? You voted for Obama and Clinton .
---------------------------------
Seem like your idols are strongmen and tyrants You, yourself, revealed your fear of democracy that expresses itself in a free press. Yes, Carson, to be manipulated and insulted by Trump while continuing as his errand boy does smack of weakness. Dr. Carson is obviously well educated, you don't seem to have any trouble with his tax based, tax funded education. When will you cut the BS?Ahorseback, the only reason that you evaluate Carson differently from the overeducated liberal is because he is a rightwinger. Why not just admit it? The ideology of the right is abhorrent, so I will take shallow any day and work from my side to provide greater depth and force of movement to remove the rightwinger from his current place. What ever mistake I made, I will rectify with an across the ticket removal of GOP candidates in 2018.
Only an idiot would give Bush Jr. anything above D. He fabricated intelligence to get us into a war. Cut taxes while being in said war, and couldn't head off the collapse of the economy.
Terrible president.You have evidence that he fabricated evidence? As in he was told the truth and told us all something else?
Whether he actually had it fabricated or was deceived by a fabrication, what difference does it make? D, at least. GOP is always so quick to go to war - yippee, more money to make for our supporters!!
Actually, quite a bit. Motive does play a part, unless you believe that all automobile accidents are intentionally caused? That anyone believing a lie (Bush didn't; there were WMD's there) makes them an idiot? That if intel is wrong it means all Republicans just drool over the possibility of a war?
Be nice. Bush 43 kept our country safe after 9/11. He took the fight over there instead of the homeland.I believe there were no terrorist acts against the US during his 8 year not withstanding 9/11 of course. Despite the many charges against Bush, he was not a conservative. That was my biggest disappointment. He and Cheney took the high road and refuse to comment or defend themselves against the left attacks... The whole thing about him lying to get us into the Iraq war is a fabrication of the left. All intelligence agencies believed that Sadam had WMD and that he would use it...
Wilderness: Phase II of the Senate report on Pre-War Intelligence was publicly released on Thursday June 5, 2008.
This was a bi-partisan majority report (10-5) and "details inappropriate, sensitive intelligence activities conducted by the DoD’s Office of the Undersecretary of Defense for Policy, without the knowledge of the Intelligence Community or the State Department." It concludes that the US Administration "repeatedly presented intelligence as fact when in reality it was unsubstantiated, contradicted, or even non-existent. As a result, the American people were led to believe that the threat from Iraq was much greater than actually existed.” These included President Bush's statements of a partnership between Iraq and Al Qa'ida, that Saddam Hussein was preparing to give weapons of mass destruction to terrorist groups, and Iraq's capability to produce chemical weapons.
So, yeah, I accept that investigation as fact.Liberalism/Progressivism are ideologies espoused by government employees/retirees, and those who gain their income from the government either directly or indirectly. "Indirectly" includes corporations and other enterprises that depend on government laws and mandates, subsidies, and monopolies. This includes almost everyone in education, law, health care, banking and finance, Big Ag, and most big corporations. Liberals/progressives are merely people who want more government money--or fear seeing the funds they receive diminish.
In my town, the annual revenues/expenditures for a very small public school system are $20 million per year. A very small handful of local elites controls these funds. A voucher system horrifies these people. They would no long control a $20 million per year cash flow--handing out jobs, contracts, and materials/equipment purchases to relatives and cronies. Instead, parents and the community as a whole would control this money.
HUD housing is a similar deal. It is a subsidy for landlords, and it drives up rents and the cost of purchasing housing for other residents. Agricultural subsidies are why we have corporate agriculture instead of small family farms. Obamacare gifted a staggering cash flow to insurance companies. Obama bailed out the banks.
Big Government is where the people are taxed so that the government can gift those tax dollars to the wealthy .01%. The people get welfare and food stamps."Liberalism/Progressivism are ideologies espoused by government employees/retirees, and those who gain their income from the government either directly or indirectly. "Indirectly" includes corporations and other enterprises that depend on government laws and mandates, subsidies, and monopolies. This includes almost everyone in education, law, health care, banking and finance, Big Ag, and most big corporations. Liberals/progressives are merely people who want more government money--or fear seeing the funds they receive diminish."
So what sets apart these "conservatives" after this litany of yours which in one way or another covers everybody, who is left?
So, I guess that all the miltary veterans and social security recipients are all liberal, too. If that were true then Rightwingers would never win any election?
And what 'teat' are the conservatives taking their nourishment from?My " teat " nourishment comes from smaller , less intrusive ,less taxing nanny state government that allows me to support myself , like all conservatives , hence the "conserve " of isms .
I never got my free Obama phone , is that what you message from ?That Obama phone stuff is just more tired cliches from the rightwinger.
The big Government comes to protect us all from the excesses of the plutocrats that you seem to idolize. Also, we need protection from people like you who want to destroy the idea of a free press based on lame excuses about "liberal media".You either Don't understand the abuses of "free press " or simply don't care because its your ideology they support and i know that IS what it all amounts to for you ,
"Big Government" gives you all you need and to you , only lacks giving you all you want , you 've already described that entitlement .
- ahorsebackposted 7 years ago0
Liberal leadership and their unseen racism , All anyone has to do is observe the great bastions of liberal local government , Chicago always comes to mind , NYC , Detroit , L.A. , New Orleans , Baltimore , Washington DC. ,Seattle , the evidence of local political policy support for minorities speaks volumes , and it's no different now with the sanctuary city governments ,
"Bring me your voting masses ", the promises made for the votes gained has merely supported liberal politicians who never otherwise have a useful policy of real urban growth , economic advancements or racial equality , these things are no more in their plans than an affordable ACA , What have liberal politicians done at all but provide more and more entrenching entitlements to minorities and effectively create the construct of permanent enslavement of all minorities by design ?The very idea that minorities subsist solely on entitlements and are enslaved to Democrats for that reason is standard conservative dogma and racist in itself. It shows the lack of respect which explains why the GOP and conservatives continue to have problems gaining support in the Black community.
Or , Its the truth and always the most difficult part of facing the truth is admitting it within ourselves.
It is your common stereotype and delusion and if Republicans continue in it, they will continue to be avoided by the Black community, but then again, they don't need minority votes and voters? Just wait until mid century....
Could your point be affected by the fact that the majority of welfare programs recipients are white Caucasians?
GAWhen you say "most "do you bother with proportionate percentages or are you in support of just the usual P.C. slang ? I know you're more intelligent than that .
For instance , single parent homes , abortions ?
Numbers do not allow the support of falsehoods
.No ahorseback, my statement didn't address a proportionate consideration, it wasn't intended to, and it certainly wasn't an effort to be PC. It was merely an attempt to prod you to consider some of your all-encompassing generalizations before putting so much faith in them.
I am aware that Blacks are disproportionately represented as welfare program recipients. And I do share the persuasive view, (as jackclee detailed), that Democrat originated, and supported welfare programs have done more harm than help, (the Republicans aren't guiltless - some of their 'forced' eligibility requirements are the source of the harm).
Wouldn't it be better to be a little more directed, than to have your broad generalizations so easily disproved - requiring you to then say what you really meant - to prove that maybe you weren't all wrong?
GA
Credence2, we conservatives are not saying it is the only thing that the black community are dependent on welfare. It is a higher percentage than the average. Do you deny that?
You have to ask yourself why so many teenager single moms are from the black community?
This was not always the case. Before there was welfare, and housing subsidies and child services, and food stamps... there were poor blacks as there were poor immigrants and poor whites but there families were in tack.
It was the social welfare system that destroyed the black family unit leading to the many problems with juvenile delinquency, crimes and drugs and gangs...
I wish you would remove your race lens and look at these government programs for what they are.
They are a failure. Their good intentions end up hurting the people that needed the help. There solution of throwing more money did not fix the problem but made things worse.+1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000- you're correct as usual, Jack.
Credence2, we conservatives are not saying it is the only thing that the black community are dependent on welfare.
------------------------------------
With a group or community that is on average poorer than the general population, then yes those percentages are higher. What about the statistics as shown by this USA today article:
https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/pe … /21877399/
In regard to food stamps I don't recall a large population of Blacks living in either Oregon or West Virginia? So this idea that: Blacks supporting democrats and their policies = Black poverty and their otherwise dysfunctional state? I am sure that there are many GOP voters that are white in West Virginia, and are staunch GOP, how has their loyalty to conservative principles benefitted them? So as was alluded to by a recent and astute comment earlier in this thread, Blacks are not the only ones in poverty and on food stamps.
So you engage in a false equivalency, in other words, 'weird science'.
The GOP does have an image problem beyond the fact that it and conservatives are intellectually dishonest. The patient with any number of ailments and maladies lies on the table, you want to turn off life support. Is that your best recommendation?
Black people have been supporting Democrats since the Thirties, what is the specious argument that somehow all the problems in the Black community have been occurring since then? The moralistic and simplistic arguments from Republicans and the right just pour more salt on the wounds. Again, they are intellectually dishonest, it is easy to wag a finger and lecture, but what are your solutions to the problem? How do you take conservative principles and turn around problems in our community that can just as much be attributed to the dark side of modernity as supporting "democrats'? The stuff that everybody accuses blacks of are coming to a white community near you. They have been insulated for a time, but these negative trends are increasing for them as well(opioid addition) and that is just the beginning.
------------------------------------------
"You have to ask yourself why so many teenager single moms are from the black community?
This was not always the case. Before there was welfare, and housing subsidies and child services, and food stamps... there were poor blacks as there were poor immigrants and poor whites but there families were in tack."
-----------------------------
There is more to life and living than just families being intact. People have to eat and have shelter. If you are advocating the life style of the poor prior to advent of social welfare programs of the thirties, than you don't know much about American history.
-------------------
It was the social welfare system that destroyed the black family unit leading to the many problems with juvenile delinquency, crimes and drugs and gangs...
I wish you would remove your race lens and look at these government programs for what they are.
They are a failure.
------------------------------------
So what is the Conservatives' solution to the problems, besides blame Social Welfare and tossing granny and the kids on onto the street to fend for themselves, in accordance to your 'family values' dogma?
Until the Conservatives, aka, GOP confer with the Black community instead of insult it and talk at it like one would a child, you will get nowhere. That is a promise. From my Amway days, I remember an old adage, "better to have a hamburger well presented, than a steak in the face".Credence2,
It was not my intent to pour salt on the wound.
I was pointing out how supporting a democratic progressive policy have made the plight of blacks and the poor in general worse. It is not a race thing but a social welfare thing.
You ask for my solution...and I will give it.
1. Stop voting with your blanket support of one party. You loose your power by voting 90% democrats.
2. Demand better schools in the inner cities. Options like charter schools and vouchers. Break the hold of the teacher's unions over the board of education in these cities. The schools are failing and no one cares. The students are receiving the short end while teachers get lucrative contracts.
3. Follow the advice of some of your religion and conservative leaders...people like Dr. Ben Carson who grew up poor but made it in our country...how did he succeed while many failed?
4. Stop being a victim. You might have a born disposition but that is not an excuse to do nothing.
5. Learn a skill. Does not have to be an expensive college education. Any skill will get a good pay including plumbers and electricians and welders and a slew of skilled labors.
6. Don't get marry or have kids until you are ready. The quickest way to poverty is to be dependent on government welfare. You will be poor in spirit as well.
7. Stop believing in the lie that conservatives are bigots and wants poor people to die...
It was never true. Conservatives wants all of us to live in a color blind society. Like MLK, we judge people not by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.
BTW, the list of recommendations apply equally to any minority group.Credence2,
It was not my intent to pour salt on the wound.
---
No, Jacklee, I am sure that was not your intent
--------
I was pointing out how supporting a democratic progressive policy have made the plight of blacks and the poor in general worse. It is not a race thing but a social welfare thing.
-------------------------
Is that really the cause? that is where we are in disagreement. The question I ask is how GOP conservative policy is going to make it better?
-----------------------------------------
You ask for my solution...and I will give it.
1. Stop voting with your blanket support of one party. You loose your power by voting 90% democrats.
We have to a have REASON to vote for other party beyond the fact that it is simply there. A party that has denigrated our people, culture and values. A party that attempts to disenfranchise us, belittle us at every opportunity. A party that would rather lecture than listen. Why would I vote for a party like that? I will always stick with the Devil I know...
--------------------------------------------
2. Demand better schools in the inner cities. Options like charter schools and vouchers. Break the hold of the teacher's unions over the board of education in these cities. The schools are failing and no one cares. The students are receiving the short end while teachers get lucrative contracts.
I am interested in improving the standard of education for K-12. But vouchering or otherwise linking access and quality of education to how much one can afford is not much better than discriminating based upon race. We all know that the 'tax breaks' that underlie the vouchers really only benefit the wealthy, children from poor families won't benefit a great deal. I want a level playing field for all going out, and equal access and quality of education at the early stages is part of that. So, I say make the needed improvements within the public schools system.
--------------------------------
3. Follow the advice of some of your religion and conservative leaders...people like Dr. Ben Carson who grew up poor but made it in our country...how did he succeed while many failed?
I consider myself successful in my chosen field of endeavor and I did it without becoming a rightwinger. No one has eliminated the voices of spiritual and conservative advocates from the chorus. Their solutions and examples that support them are far and few in-between. One case in point does not support a general plan or approach to the problems.
----------------------
4. Stop being a victim. You might have a born disposition but that is not an excuse to do nothing.
Why you get the idea that minority people has resolved to do nothing to improve their state of affairs? The inner city is not represented of our minority group of as a whole. Why do folks continue to imply that this is the case?
-------------------------------
5. Learn a skill. Does not have to be an expensive college education. Any skill will get a good pay including plumbers and electricians and welders and a slew of skilled labors.
Good trade schools are expensive, but conservative ideology is against providing assistance for those that otherwise lack the resources to attend. This is a lot like you folks saying 'pull yourself up by your own bootstraps'. But where are the boots?
------------------
6. Don't get marry or have kids until you are ready. The quickest way to poverty is to be dependent on government welfare. You will be poor in spirit as well.
Good advice that could apply to all poor people, not just Blacks
------------
7. Stop believing in the lie that conservatives are bigots and wants poor people to die...
It was never true. Conservatives wants all of us to live in a color blind society. Like MLK, we judge people not by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.
Sounds more like a slogan, Jacklee. You are being judged on what you do, and how your policies and behavior mirror the high sounding words. And, lets face it, they do not synch.
------
BTW, the list of recommendations apply equally to any minority group.
And poor whites...The saddest thing about this comment is that you can't see the things that are wrong with it, Jack.
I intentionally try to remain 'in the middle' between the left & the right because it is a proveable fact that when you focus so much attention on any 'bad' (or good) thing - the essense of it will eventually come to you. (Look up Law of Attraction, it is no-doubt why we have DT in office now, LoL!) In other words, this country is in chaos because our energies are so split among us; and we literally CAN'T create many mutually-productive policies. So while the left & the right continue to push against the extreme ideals of each other - it is my intention to help each of them see the value in the other (as mad as I can get at either side sometimes, LoL!).
There IS value in 'the right' when they are not attempting to manipulate everyone in the entire country. But right now, and since Obama was first elected - all they seem to be able to do is blame everything they don't like (whether it is actually harmful for the US, or not) on the left without accepting ANY responsiblity for their part, at all.
As far as the left... They are learning that they don't have nearly as much control as they realized; and that the people in this country are not 'all left' (and for good reasons). Its a very good lesson for them to be learning.
The problem more than anything else with the extremes of our two main political parties is the intense fighting between them. I have absolutely no doubt that this country could/would start to move forward in remarkable ways if the infighting would stop; and the talking became more about working on creating solutions that work for us instead of all the accusations & insults.
I always use the fact that GOP contributed the use of already existing insurance companies within Obamacare instead of creating a new government one. That was a brilliant alteration, no matter how much GOP supporters hate that policy. (Just imagine what other good contributions they could make toward bipartisan policies; and even moreso if we didn't have to FORCE them to participate in bipartisan discussions!)
Obviously, both political parties CAN work together when 'we the people' insist on it. GOP keeps blaming the Dems for creating such a ridiculous policy and practically forcing Obamacare on them - but, GOP wouldn't work with them, when it was OBVIOUS that 'we the people' WANTED healthcare to be addressed - and have, for decades! They KNOW this, and continue to ignore the majority of us.
Its been exasperating.
The point is, Jack... When you realize WHY things are the way they are; and WHY black people are on the TOP of the lists you keep bringing up, it makes your persistent view that its 'ALL their fault and not our problem' moot. Its the same thing with indigineous indians: both slavery, and this land being 'claimed' by white conquerors are not that far back in our history - only a handful of generations, this country is LESS than 300 years old.
How long did it take (via protests & sometimes tragedy) for blacks & women to gain their RIGHTFUL & lawful places within this country via semi-equal rights & voting; and how much longer does it take for everyone - sometimes especially them - to be able to embrace 'the idea' of their 'rightful & lawful' place?
Credence is right... many (certainly not all, but this is changing WAY too slowly) have NEVER HAD 'boots' to pull themselves up by the bootstraps; and have never stopped having to deal with the ingrained attitudes of the alt-right in whatever form their destructive attitudes have existed in throughout this country's development.
Do I even need to broach the subject of the attitudes that STILL exist in a big way about women: that they should stay home and raise their children. And when their marriages don't work out; and the family splits - gosh, it is SO seldom that things work out swell for all sides concerned, especially the kids. You may think it is 'the norm' for women to acheive a successful career and family, both - but it is rare in comparison to what actually happens. And are you even aware of how much childcare costs so women CAN go out and work?
There are still sermons being preached about 'the place of women' in the pulpits - and was actually one of the LAST sermons I ever listened to a couple years ago. I was so incensed! Not only is it still a 'bad' message for young women; but in this day and age when it is so hard for one income to support a family - it really puts an outdated burden on young men.
Is anyone else concerned about the rising statistics of suicides among young men (and veterans) - no matter what race they are? http://www.bcmj.org/articles/silent-epi … le-suicide https://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/08/us/s … .html?_r=0 Suicide deaths in the rise among kids - WHY?! Mostly because of variations of bullying that so many people keep excusing as 'being part of growing up'. http://www.cnn.com/2016/11/03/health/ki … index.html
This country is a bag of mixed messages & judgements against each other for the most assumptive & ridiculous reasons; and double-standards ABOUND on every side. All of this diversity is GOOD, but only if we take advantage of it by talking & working together, instead of accusing each other & infighting.
I'll give you one more example of this unnecessary polarization: abortion. There is NOT ONE 'normal' man or woman on this planet ANYWHERE who WANTS an abortion to happen. We ALL want fewer abortions; and there are so many other options to reduce them than by doing the dangerous thing of removing the law of choice. (Btw, abortions especially among young girls have a LOT to do with the mixed messages I just touched on, above - and of course, boys receive a different 'locker-room' message from their mentors: go out and have as much sex as you can get as soon as possible!!)
When we start appreciating the opposing side, and utilizing all perspectives to develop our policies - then and only then will this country become greater than it already is.
Misfit chick,
I see you have a lot of passion or else you wouldn't take the time to respond with such a long note.
Here is what is sad for me. The fact that so many people accept their lot in life and rely on our government to do the heavy lifting.
They will be disappointed again and again...
I am glad you brought up the abortion issue.
Let me address this one item since many of the points you raise deserve a counter but this is one that is front and center for me.
You claim we all want the same thing and that is for abortion to be rare...
Is that true?
We conservatives certainly believes that and in fact we disagree with how abortion came to be legalized in this country. It was decided by the Supreme court without any vote or amendment to our Constitution...
Today, most poll will show about 50% of the population think abortion is wrong.
However, does your liberal colleagues believe it should be legal and rare too?
Why do we have over 1 million abortions per year in this country?
With all that was spent on sex education and prevention and condoms...day after pill...
Why are there still so many abortions? Why are some being done in the 2nd and third trimester?
You are an intelligent person. I would ask you to do your own research. Find out what Planned Parenthood is about. Is abortion the last resort or the first? Find out how much money is being made in abortion clinics? Find out for yourself how some fetus are sold for organ parts for medial research...
I want you to go back and read the Supreme Court ruling on legalizing abortion back in 1973. Read how the justices struggled with this decision and how they see abortion as a rare and last resort. They would prefer adoption and other methods but allowed this procedure as a last resort to save the life of the mother or when all other options are closed.
Fast forward to 2017 and see how abortion is adopted, implemented and accepted...Any legal action to restrict abortion is faced with strong opposition from the left. Why?
Some proposals are reasonable restrictions on late term and partial birth abortions which most Americans agree with...
Doesn't the unborn fetus have any rights? To life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness...
With regard to Planned Parenthood, why does our tax dollars have to go fund this organization that profits from performing abortions?
So you see, we as a country are divided on strong principled issues.
It is not just a miss understanding. It is a fundamental difference in how we are to live as a society.
Do we want a big government that oversee everything from cradle to grave or do we value individual choices and freedom and self reliance?
Who knows best? The government bureaucrats in DC or the individuals who just want to be left alone and pursue his or her dreams...?
Let me end by making the following observation.
How is it that a person who immigrate to our country from any third world country, without money, or speak the language and in a few short years, assimulate to our culture, gets a job and work and make a living to support themselves and their family without any government assistance?
Yet, a US citizen, not disabled, born here, educated here, speaks English and yet can't make a living and have to rely on welfare and food stamps ang government assistance?
Don't tell me that is a normal way for some people because it can't be...Like I said, no one WANTS an abortion to happen - and if you think anyone does, you've been watching way to much Fox News. I've also heard about the sale of body parts and such... Most doctors and people within the medical community consider a dead body to be just a mass of cells or whatever. If that is happening, I would imagine that is how they are perceiving the situation.
For what its worth, since there are so many people who are totally repulsed by the idea of using aborted tissue for medical purposes - I agree that aborted fetus' should be off limits. Perhaps if the idea of overturning abortion is stopped, our energies could be refocused on this aspect of things to change it. I am certainly not saying that nothing needs to be improved upon this issue.
There are so many other things we can do to curb abortions than by eliminating the law surrounding choice. Christian (mostly - and other religions, in general) women are the ones who use abortion the most - despite the fact that they believe God is creating the life within them atom by atom, hair by hair.
Why?
I've never had an abortion, but I had no less than FIVE fellow Christian teenage & college age girlfriends who did - and every single one of them did it to keep from embarrassing their parents and/or to avoid punishment. I've written about it. It is a HUGE issue among Christian churches that they refuse to acknowledge, much less address.
When you figure out WHY abortions happen SECRETLY and so often within the Christian community - you'll be able to figure out how to address the situation to reduce them. You can take a couple hints from my previous post. Young girls and young boys get into trouble while trying to process all kinds of mixed messages.
The bottom line is, changing the law will dangerously lead to more desperate dead girls - like before.
Why do you feel a need to control things like abortion & same-sex marriages - and yet, insist that the government needs to be out of our healthcare & social challenges? If a young girl who is not capable of taking care of a baby yet has one - you sure don't seem willing to help her raise it. Seems like a glaring contradiction to me with your 'beliefs' in the way.
Many MANY people do not believe that the soul enters the body of a baby until a few weeks before birth; and it can happen even within a couple days after a baby being born. Our souls are energy, and they exist long before we are born. Which means they are perfectly capable of being born into another life if the mother decides to make a different choice. God is not limited to these physical bodies like we are.
Of course, that is only a belief - one that most conservatives don't hold. It is yet another situation in which conservatives insist that THEIR (many times erroneous) beliefs are the only valid ones.
I'm not sure why you are bringing up immigrants, I didn't even touch on them. I'm sorry you've missed my point about the scars that still exist in this country among races that would really help to be healed. There is certainly room for improvements for every single little thing this country deals with. At the moment, most of our policies reflect the wishes of corporations - many of whom LIKE the cheap labor of immigrants. We need to get people into those offices who are more interested in healing the wounds across our land than perpetuating & arguing about them.You didn't answer my question. Why is late term abortion necessary?
Why so many abortions with all the prevention methods?
Why planned parenthood chose abortion as first option rather than last...?
With conservatives, abortion does not stand alone as one isolated issue.
It is tied to the whole way of living...
Don't you agree many of our social ills are interrelated...
One of teen preganancy, single mothers, poverty, welfare and self reliance...
All can be addressed by personal behavior choices and they are tied to moral teachings which are lacking in our failed public schools.
If you doubt my position on planned parenthood, just go visit a clinic. Tell them you are pregnant and see what kind of advice they will give you...
Especially if you are under age... which they are suppose by law to report them. They don't...how come? Who are they protecting? The parents are the last to know.
In our current public schools, the nurses are not allowed to give out an aspirin for a headache but they will give advice on abortion and referrals without notifying parents...
- ahorsebackposted 7 years ago0
ALL political rhetoric aside , I will now "open a can of worms" for liberals AND all minorities ,.........
There could in fact be no finer positive influence or power within ANY minorities future that the Black American Conservative . Why ? Because my first natural impression of the speeches of Dr. Ben Carson , Sheriff David Clark , the honorable Condi Rice , David Webb [brilliant radio personality ], and many many other black conservatives , Is that common sense not only originates within and from conservative think tanks , but they alone are the under-dogs of true future of cultural , political progress in America .
Period ! I've been to a planned parenthood clinic. I used to get my birth control & exams there when I was in college. You can believe what you want to believe about it, Jack - no doubt you will no matter what I say. Like I said, there may be things that can stand to be changed about it. Conservatives simply want to do away with it instead of becoming involved with it - so it is currently a very 'left' organization.
If you want change, you have to get involved instead of making ignorant, sweeping judgments based on what conservative media hypes up to scare their audiences for profits.
As far as I am concerned, I did answer all of your questions about abortion. If you need a specific response as to late term abortions, do a search. Those usually happen when a mother finds out that the baby is going to be born handicapped in some way or if there is danger to the mother. It is the mother's choice. We don't all believe in the soul the same way Christians do.
Most of us, especially women (of all religious cultures) who grow up in this maddening man's world - care as MUCH about the person making the decision about abortion (and WHY they are having to make it) than about the baby who isn't born yet (that you could care LESS about helping to take care of if they can't).
You have no idea how sad it is that most conservatives can't grasp that concept. If you could, you would probably stop many more abortions than you do. I know that every one of my five girlfriends regretted having their abortions; and NOT ONE of them felt like they had a reliable Christian grownup to talk to about it who would not throw the judgment book at them. One was sure her father would literally kill her - and since he was a deacon in the church and had a reputation for violence against his wife & children, he may very well have. And just as concerning, THREE (I kid you not) of them chose NOT to have children later in life because they felt too guilty about aborting the one they did.
Fear is what causes most abortions (and kills desperate girls in alleys when abortions are not available); but it is something else that causes all those unwanted pregancies. Like I said, when you figure out WHY this happens so often among Christian congregations and across the country - you'll be on the right track.I don't know about you personally and I am sure you are truthful in what you experienced.
However, if that is the case, you are taking a position on abortion that is contrary to what you espouse.
Don't blame conservatives for trying to limit abortions.
You should be joining us in keeping abortions rare.
That is something I can't understand about this issue.
Why are some woman so dead against any form of restrictions on abortion?
They want abortion on demand as the rule of the land.
They claim total control of their body and that trumps anyone else, even a viable fetus.
Yet you claim you want it to be rare...?
The facts don't show it. As I said, we have over 1 million abortions performed each year.
Does that seem rare to you?
That is a lot of income to planned parenthood.$$$
I don't want my tax dollar go to that organization. Is that so hard for you to comprehend?
Related Discussions
- 142
What is your opinion of President Obama, the President, not the man?
by Jack Lee 7 years ago
It has been almost a year since he left office. Though he seems to stick around DC and make his comments occasionally about policies...The question I have for all is this - what is your opinion of this President in his 8 years in office...?Overall, has he been good or bad for America?Please use...
- 4
Will race relations grow better under a Trump presidency? Or will they decline f
by Larry Slawson 7 years ago
Will race relations grow better under a Trump presidency? Or will they decline further?It is often asserted by the media and college campuses that a Trump presidency will destroy all the progress made in race relations over the last 50+ years. But do you think this is true?
- 14
Is the Skin Color and Race of President Obama the reason for the heightened Ant
by ixwa 13 years ago
Is the Skin Color and Race of President Obama the reason for the heightened Antagonism and Racism?
- 38
Now That You're Over your Obama Love Affair ?
by ahorseback 6 years ago
How much racism do you think President Obama's terms CREATED rather than cured? Did he help or hurt the overall cause of race relations ?
- 9
Are Race Relations Better Or Worse After Obama?
by PhoenixV 8 years ago
Are Race Relations Better Or Worse After Obama?
- 121
How much of the opposition to Obama is about his race?
by Nathan Bernardo 12 years ago
Is it not a little telling that it comes up at all? Questioning his nation of origin, and in other ways making reference to his race. It seems entirely irrelevant, though a person can definitely question many other things about his policies, and there's plenty of it to question. It seems his...