[politics] Sharpie Man - How does it feel to be an American under an insecure president?

[CheetoDust_v1legacy]

Term limits were made because FDR broke a then un-broken tradition. Just because something is not illegal, doesnt mean it is ok to do.

Yes, a tradition. To be perfectly honest, I don't care one iota if a President breaks tradition. Why should we?

If people are going to condemn Obama for drone strikes cause war is always bad, they have to also believe that fighting WW2 was bad.

This doesn't follow at all. Almost everybody agrees that war is sometimes justified (such as in WW2), while also condemning the most egregious instances of war. There's absolutely no reason someone can't condemn drone strikes and the US wars in the Middle East while also believing US involvement in WW2 was justified. That's perfectly consistent.

Ah yes, FDR, cause who gives a fuck about term limits, right?

Term limits were not in place until 1951, after FDR's death.

Oh, and lets not forget how he was dragging us into war, cause how dare a President be involved with war right?

Are you seriously suggesting that it's a point against FDR that he took the US to war against the Axis?

Term limits were made because FDR broke a then un-broken tradition. Just because something is not illegal, doesnt mean it is ok to do.

If people are going to condemn Obama for drone strikes cause war is always bad, they have to also believe that fighting WW2 was bad. Personally, I wish the US went to war against the Nazis sooner, and for the sake of justice rather than just cause they were allied with Japan, but I am not the one arguing that Obama is bad for even touching war.

Yeah, that's not the reason to dislike FDR. Well, at least as much as the fact that he saw Nazi Germany (early, before they became aggressive) and copied some of their economic policies, eg. cartels. I have some understanding why some people are totally against Socialism. Organising business to 'help the little guy' ended up making sure there could be no new owners, more expensive goods or destroyed current businesses. But at least he did organise unions so employees had less pay and worked more hours

I am defending Obama by pointing out the faults in condemning him without applying that same standard to past Presidents.

I think term limits is a good thing, and while 'tradition' is perhaps a bad defense, 'its not illegal, so its not wrong' IS.

Obama is not perfect, but literally no President ever has been. If we are going to apply an impossibly high bar to him, we cannot excuse anyone else. Some people might be ok with bigoted double-standards, but not me.

The only double standard is that Obama gets a free pass for a lot of the shit we condemn other politicians for. Thousands are dead because of him and if he's the best America can do then fuck America.

edit: should have said the only double standard here.

 

[Thaluikhain]

The only double standard is that Obama gets a free pass for a lot of the shit we condemn other politicians for.

What, there's absolutely no other double standards that apply to Obama? Yeah, no. You can certainly condemn him for all sorts of things, but that's completely untrue.

 

[CheetoDust_v1legacy]

The only double standard is that Obama gets a free pass for a lot of the shit we condemn other politicians for.

What, there's absolutely no other double standards that apply to Obama? Yeah, no. You can certainly condemn him for all sorts of things, but that's completely untrue.

I misspoke. Should have read the only double standard HERE.

 

[Saelune]

Personally, I wish the US went to war against the Nazis sooner, and for the sake of justice rather than just cause they were allied with Japan

Getting a bit off-topic, but that's not why the US went to war with Germany, Germany (and Italy) declared war on the US shortly after Pearl Harbour, the US declared war back afterwards.

We didnt go to war to do good, we did not go to war to save the Jews, we did not go to war to save the world from literally Hitler.

 

[Saelune]

Term limits were made because FDR broke a then un-broken tradition. Just because something is not illegal, doesnt mean it is ok to do.

Yes, a tradition. To be perfectly honest, I don't care one iota if a President breaks tradition. Why should we?

If people are going to condemn Obama for drone strikes cause war is always bad, they have to also believe that fighting WW2 was bad.

This doesn't follow at all. Almost everybody agrees that war is sometimes justified (such as in WW2), while also condemning the most egregious instances of war. There's absolutely no reason someone can't condemn drone strikes and the US wars in the Middle East while also believing US involvement in WW2 was justified. That's perfectly consistent.

Ah yes, FDR, cause who gives a fuck about term limits, right?

Term limits were not in place until 1951, after FDR's death.

Oh, and lets not forget how he was dragging us into war, cause how dare a President be involved with war right?

Are you seriously suggesting that it's a point against FDR that he took the US to war against the Axis?

Term limits were made because FDR broke a then un-broken tradition. Just because something is not illegal, doesnt mean it is ok to do.

If people are going to condemn Obama for drone strikes cause war is always bad, they have to also believe that fighting WW2 was bad. Personally, I wish the US went to war against the Nazis sooner, and for the sake of justice rather than just cause they were allied with Japan, but I am not the one arguing that Obama is bad for even touching war.

Yeah, that's not the reason to dislike FDR. Well, at least as much as the fact that he saw Nazi Germany (early, before they became aggressive) and copied some of their economic policies, eg. cartels. I have some understanding why some people are totally against Socialism. Organising business to 'help the little guy' ended up making sure there could be no new owners, more expensive goods or destroyed current businesses. But at least he did organise unions so employees had less pay and worked more hours

I am defending Obama by pointing out the faults in condemning him without applying that same standard to past Presidents.

I think term limits is a good thing, and while 'tradition' is perhaps a bad defense, 'its not illegal, so its not wrong' IS.

Obama is not perfect, but literally no President ever has been. If we are going to apply an impossibly high bar to him, we cannot excuse anyone else. Some people might be ok with bigoted double-standards, but not me.

The only double standard is that Obama gets a free pass for a lot of the shit we condemn other politicians for. Thousands are dead because of him and if he's the best America can do then fuck America.

edit: should have said the only double standard here.

As long as Republicans condemn Obama for being pro-LGBT and for being black and for trying to give us some form of universial healthcare, I wont waste my breath 'both sides' ing him. As long as we allow literal White Supremacists drag this country to Hell, I will overlook a whole damn lot. I dont want to, but sometimes you need to realize the bigger problem is white supremacy. Everything Obama did wrong, Romney and McCain would have done and worse. Free pass? Show me someone who would do better, and I will show you someone who will also commit war crimes. If Hell exists, being the leader of a major nation is an automatic ticket. Idealism cannot go unchecked by pragmatism.

If we want a higher bar than Obama, then we need to actually put in people who are of a higher bar. All Trump has done is made me miss Bush, and Bush was TERRIBLE.

 

[Silvanus]

I am defending Obama by pointing out the faults in condemning him without applying that same standard to past Presidents.

But it's not a double standard to condemn the current wars while believing that involvement in WW2 was justified. You can apply the same standard and still come to that conclusion.

I think term limits is a good thing, and while 'tradition' is perhaps a bad defense, 'its not illegal, so its not wrong' IS.

Yeah, but nobody has used that defence.

Obama is not perfect, but literally no President ever has been. If we are going to apply an impossibly high bar to him, we cannot excuse anyone else. Some people might be ok with bigoted double-standards, but not me.

Expecting a President to avoid egregious loss of civilian life is not an "impossibly high bar". Its very easy. We've just become very used to inhumane behaviour.

 

[CheetoDust_v1legacy]

Term limits were made because FDR broke a then un-broken tradition. Just because something is not illegal, doesnt mean it is ok to do.

Yes, a tradition. To be perfectly honest, I don't care one iota if a President breaks tradition. Why should we?

If people are going to condemn Obama for drone strikes cause war is always bad, they have to also believe that fighting WW2 was bad.

This doesn't follow at all. Almost everybody agrees that war is sometimes justified (such as in WW2), while also condemning the most egregious instances of war. There's absolutely no reason someone can't condemn drone strikes and the US wars in the Middle East while also believing US involvement in WW2 was justified. That's perfectly consistent.

Ah yes, FDR, cause who gives a fuck about term limits, right?

Term limits were not in place until 1951, after FDR's death.

Oh, and lets not forget how he was dragging us into war, cause how dare a President be involved with war right?

Are you seriously suggesting that it's a point against FDR that he took the US to war against the Axis?

Term limits were made because FDR broke a then un-broken tradition. Just because something is not illegal, doesnt mean it is ok to do.

If people are going to condemn Obama for drone strikes cause war is always bad, they have to also believe that fighting WW2 was bad. Personally, I wish the US went to war against the Nazis sooner, and for the sake of justice rather than just cause they were allied with Japan, but I am not the one arguing that Obama is bad for even touching war.

Yeah, that's not the reason to dislike FDR. Well, at least as much as the fact that he saw Nazi Germany (early, before they became aggressive) and copied some of their economic policies, eg. cartels. I have some understanding why some people are totally against Socialism. Organising business to 'help the little guy' ended up making sure there could be no new owners, more expensive goods or destroyed current businesses. But at least he did organise unions so employees had less pay and worked more hours

I am defending Obama by pointing out the faults in condemning him without applying that same standard to past Presidents.

I think term limits is a good thing, and while 'tradition' is perhaps a bad defense, 'its not illegal, so its not wrong' IS.

Obama is not perfect, but literally no President ever has been. If we are going to apply an impossibly high bar to him, we cannot excuse anyone else. Some people might be ok with bigoted double-standards, but not me.

The only double standard is that Obama gets a free pass for a lot of the shit we condemn other politicians for. Thousands are dead because of him and if he's the best America can do then fuck America.

edit: should have said the only double standard here.

As long as Republicans condemn Obama for being pro-LGBT and for being black and for trying to give us some form of universial healthcare, I wont waste my breath 'both sides' ing him. As long as we allow literal White Supremacists drag this country to Hell, I will overlook a whole damn lot. I dont want to, but sometimes you need to realize the bigger problem is white supremacy. Everything Obama did wrong, Romney and McCain would have done and worse. Free pass? Show me someone who would do better, and I will show you someone who will also commit war crimes. If Hell exists, being the leader of a major nation is an automatic ticket. Idealism cannot go unchecked by pragmatism.

If we want a higher bar than Obama, then we need to actually put in people who are of a higher bar. All Trump has done is made me miss Bush, and Bush was TERRIBLE.

Yes but this attitude is going to continuously lower the bar. After Bush all anyone wanted was better than bush. And we got it and everyone acted like he was the second coming of Christ, superman and the easter bunny rolled into one despite the fact that he's responsible for countless civilian deaths and the financial ruination of God knows how many of his own people in order to better serve the interests of banks, wallstreet and the arms industry. Then Trump came and all people want is better than Trump. And best case scenario is looking like we get Biden. Who's worse than Obama. We'll get someone worse than Biden after that from Republicans and people will just want better than whoever that guy is and we'll end up with someone between him and Biden. And this will continue as planned to continuously that nobody who would ever stand up to those corporate interests ever gets elected.

 

[Saelune]

I am defending Obama by pointing out the faults in condemning him without applying that same standard to past Presidents.

But it's not a double standard to condemn the current wars while believing that involvement in WW2 was justified. You can apply the same standard and still come to that conclusion.

I think term limits is a good thing, and while 'tradition' is perhaps a bad defense, 'its not illegal, so its not wrong' IS.

Yeah, but nobody has used that defence.

Obama is not perfect, but literally no President ever has been. If we are going to apply an impossibly high bar to him, we cannot excuse anyone else. Some people might be ok with bigoted double-standards, but not me.

Expecting a President to avoid egregious loss of civilian life is not an "impossibly high bar". Its very easy. We've just become very used to inhumane behaviour.

Term limits were made because FDR broke a then un-broken tradition. Just because something is not illegal, doesnt mean it is ok to do.

Yes, a tradition. To be perfectly honest, I don't care one iota if a President breaks tradition. Why should we?

If people are going to condemn Obama for drone strikes cause war is always bad, they have to also believe that fighting WW2 was bad.

This doesn't follow at all. Almost everybody agrees that war is sometimes justified (such as in WW2), while also condemning the most egregious instances of war. There's absolutely no reason someone can't condemn drone strikes and the US wars in the Middle East while also believing US involvement in WW2 was justified. That's perfectly consistent.

Ah yes, FDR, cause who gives a fuck about term limits, right?

Term limits were not in place until 1951, after FDR's death.

Oh, and lets not forget how he was dragging us into war, cause how dare a President be involved with war right?

Are you seriously suggesting that it's a point against FDR that he took the US to war against the Axis?

Term limits were made because FDR broke a then un-broken tradition. Just because something is not illegal, doesnt mean it is ok to do.

If people are going to condemn Obama for drone strikes cause war is always bad, they have to also believe that fighting WW2 was bad. Personally, I wish the US went to war against the Nazis sooner, and for the sake of justice rather than just cause they were allied with Japan, but I am not the one arguing that Obama is bad for even touching war.

Yeah, that's not the reason to dislike FDR. Well, at least as much as the fact that he saw Nazi Germany (early, before they became aggressive) and copied some of their economic policies, eg. cartels. I have some understanding why some people are totally against Socialism. Organising business to 'help the little guy' ended up making sure there could be no new owners, more expensive goods or destroyed current businesses. But at least he did organise unions so employees had less pay and worked more hours

I am defending Obama by pointing out the faults in condemning him without applying that same standard to past Presidents.

I think term limits is a good thing, and while 'tradition' is perhaps a bad defense, 'its not illegal, so its not wrong' IS.

Obama is not perfect, but literally no President ever has been. If we are going to apply an impossibly high bar to him, we cannot excuse anyone else. Some people might be ok with bigoted double-standards, but not me.

The only double standard is that Obama gets a free pass for a lot of the shit we condemn other politicians for. Thousands are dead because of him and if he's the best America can do then fuck America.

edit: should have said the only double standard here.

As long as Republicans condemn Obama for being pro-LGBT and for being black and for trying to give us some form of universial healthcare, I wont waste my breath 'both sides' ing him. As long as we allow literal White Supremacists drag this country to Hell, I will overlook a whole damn lot. I dont want to, but sometimes you need to realize the bigger problem is white supremacy. Everything Obama did wrong, Romney and McCain would have done and worse. Free pass? Show me someone who would do better, and I will show you someone who will also commit war crimes. If Hell exists, being the leader of a major nation is an automatic ticket. Idealism cannot go unchecked by pragmatism.

If we want a higher bar than Obama, then we need to actually put in people who are of a higher bar. All Trump has done is made me miss Bush, and Bush was TERRIBLE.

Yes but this attitude is going to continuously lower the bar. After Bush all anyone wanted was better than bush. And we got it and everyone acted like he was the second coming of Christ, superman and the easter bunny rolled into one despite the fact that he's responsible for countless civilian deaths and the financial ruination of God knows how many of his own people in order to better serve the interests of banks, wallstreet and the arms industry. Then Trump came and all people want is better than Trump. And best case scenario is looking like we get Biden. Who's worse than Obama. We'll get someone worse than Biden after that from Republicans and people will just want better than whoever that guy is and we'll end up with someone between him and Biden. And this will continue as planned to continuously that nobody who would ever stand up to those corporate interests ever gets elected.

Ok, which of these people would have done better? John McCain (with Sarah Palin), Mitt Romney, or Hillary Clinton?

Unless you think one of them would have actually done a better job, then none of this matters.

 

[CheetoDust_v1legacy]

I am defending Obama by pointing out the faults in condemning him without applying that same standard to past Presidents.

But it's not a double standard to condemn the current wars while believing that involvement in WW2 was justified. You can apply the same standard and still come to that conclusion.

I think term limits is a good thing, and while 'tradition' is perhaps a bad defense, 'its not illegal, so its not wrong' IS.

Yeah, but nobody has used that defence.

Obama is not perfect, but literally no President ever has been. If we are going to apply an impossibly high bar to him, we cannot excuse anyone else. Some people might be ok with bigoted double-standards, but not me.

Expecting a President to avoid egregious loss of civilian life is not an "impossibly high bar". Its very easy. We've just become very used to inhumane behaviour.

Term limits were made because FDR broke a then un-broken tradition. Just because something is not illegal, doesnt mean it is ok to do.

Yes, a tradition. To be perfectly honest, I don't care one iota if a President breaks tradition. Why should we?

If people are going to condemn Obama for drone strikes cause war is always bad, they have to also believe that fighting WW2 was bad.

This doesn't follow at all. Almost everybody agrees that war is sometimes justified (such as in WW2), while also condemning the most egregious instances of war. There's absolutely no reason someone can't condemn drone strikes and the US wars in the Middle East while also believing US involvement in WW2 was justified. That's perfectly consistent.

Ah yes, FDR, cause who gives a fuck about term limits, right?

Term limits were not in place until 1951, after FDR's death.

Oh, and lets not forget how he was dragging us into war, cause how dare a President be involved with war right?

Are you seriously suggesting that it's a point against FDR that he took the US to war against the Axis?

Term limits were made because FDR broke a then un-broken tradition. Just because something is not illegal, doesnt mean it is ok to do.

If people are going to condemn Obama for drone strikes cause war is always bad, they have to also believe that fighting WW2 was bad. Personally, I wish the US went to war against the Nazis sooner, and for the sake of justice rather than just cause they were allied with Japan, but I am not the one arguing that Obama is bad for even touching war.

Yeah, that's not the reason to dislike FDR. Well, at least as much as the fact that he saw Nazi Germany (early, before they became aggressive) and copied some of their economic policies, eg. cartels. I have some understanding why some people are totally against Socialism. Organising business to 'help the little guy' ended up making sure there could be no new owners, more expensive goods or destroyed current businesses. But at least he did organise unions so employees had less pay and worked more hours

I am defending Obama by pointing out the faults in condemning him without applying that same standard to past Presidents.

I think term limits is a good thing, and while 'tradition' is perhaps a bad defense, 'its not illegal, so its not wrong' IS.

Obama is not perfect, but literally no President ever has been. If we are going to apply an impossibly high bar to him, we cannot excuse anyone else. Some people might be ok with bigoted double-standards, but not me.

The only double standard is that Obama gets a free pass for a lot of the shit we condemn other politicians for. Thousands are dead because of him and if he's the best America can do then fuck America.

edit: should have said the only double standard here.

As long as Republicans condemn Obama for being pro-LGBT and for being black and for trying to give us some form of universial healthcare, I wont waste my breath 'both sides' ing him. As long as we allow literal White Supremacists drag this country to Hell, I will overlook a whole damn lot. I dont want to, but sometimes you need to realize the bigger problem is white supremacy. Everything Obama did wrong, Romney and McCain would have done and worse. Free pass? Show me someone who would do better, and I will show you someone who will also commit war crimes. If Hell exists, being the leader of a major nation is an automatic ticket. Idealism cannot go unchecked by pragmatism.

If we want a higher bar than Obama, then we need to actually put in people who are of a higher bar. All Trump has done is made me miss Bush, and Bush was TERRIBLE.

Yes but this attitude is going to continuously lower the bar. After Bush all anyone wanted was better than bush. And we got it and everyone acted like he was the second coming of Christ, superman and the easter bunny rolled into one despite the fact that he's responsible for countless civilian deaths and the financial ruination of God knows how many of his own people in order to better serve the interests of banks, wallstreet and the arms industry. Then Trump came and all people want is better than Trump. And best case scenario is looking like we get Biden. Who's worse than Obama. We'll get someone worse than Biden after that from Republicans and people will just want better than whoever that guy is and we'll end up with someone between him and Biden. And this will continue as planned to continuously that nobody who would ever stand up to those corporate interests ever gets elected.

Ok, which of these people would have done better? John McCain (with Sarah Palin), Mitt Romney, or Hillary Clinton?

Unless you think one of them would have actually done a better job, then none of this matters.

None of them they all would have been bad. That doesn't make Obama good. Hilary would have been better than Trump she still would have been bad. My issue isn't that Obama was the worst president, my issue is he was a bad president that everyone acts like he was a good person and dimitsses all of the truly horrible things he's responsible for.

 

[Saelune]

I am defending Obama by pointing out the faults in condemning him without applying that same standard to past Presidents.

But it's not a double standard to condemn the current wars while believing that involvement in WW2 was justified. You can apply the same standard and still come to that conclusion.

I think term limits is a good thing, and while 'tradition' is perhaps a bad defense, 'its not illegal, so its not wrong' IS.

Yeah, but nobody has used that defence.

Obama is not perfect, but literally no President ever has been. If we are going to apply an impossibly high bar to him, we cannot excuse anyone else. Some people might be ok with bigoted double-standards, but not me.

Expecting a President to avoid egregious loss of civilian life is not an "impossibly high bar". Its very easy. We've just become very used to inhumane behaviour.

Term limits were made because FDR broke a then un-broken tradition. Just because something is not illegal, doesnt mean it is ok to do.

Yes, a tradition. To be perfectly honest, I don't care one iota if a President breaks tradition. Why should we?

If people are going to condemn Obama for drone strikes cause war is always bad, they have to also believe that fighting WW2 was bad.

This doesn't follow at all. Almost everybody agrees that war is sometimes justified (such as in WW2), while also condemning the most egregious instances of war. There's absolutely no reason someone can't condemn drone strikes and the US wars in the Middle East while also believing US involvement in WW2 was justified. That's perfectly consistent.

Ah yes, FDR, cause who gives a fuck about term limits, right?

Term limits were not in place until 1951, after FDR's death.

Oh, and lets not forget how he was dragging us into war, cause how dare a President be involved with war right?

Are you seriously suggesting that it's a point against FDR that he took the US to war against the Axis?

Term limits were made because FDR broke a then un-broken tradition. Just because something is not illegal, doesnt mean it is ok to do.

If people are going to condemn Obama for drone strikes cause war is always bad, they have to also believe that fighting WW2 was bad. Personally, I wish the US went to war against the Nazis sooner, and for the sake of justice rather than just cause they were allied with Japan, but I am not the one arguing that Obama is bad for even touching war.

Yeah, that's not the reason to dislike FDR. Well, at least as much as the fact that he saw Nazi Germany (early, before they became aggressive) and copied some of their economic policies, eg. cartels. I have some understanding why some people are totally against Socialism. Organising business to 'help the little guy' ended up making sure there could be no new owners, more expensive goods or destroyed current businesses. But at least he did organise unions so employees had less pay and worked more hours

I am defending Obama by pointing out the faults in condemning him without applying that same standard to past Presidents.

I think term limits is a good thing, and while 'tradition' is perhaps a bad defense, 'its not illegal, so its not wrong' IS.

Obama is not perfect, but literally no President ever has been. If we are going to apply an impossibly high bar to him, we cannot excuse anyone else. Some people might be ok with bigoted double-standards, but not me.

The only double standard is that Obama gets a free pass for a lot of the shit we condemn other politicians for. Thousands are dead because of him and if he's the best America can do then fuck America.

edit: should have said the only double standard here.

As long as Republicans condemn Obama for being pro-LGBT and for being black and for trying to give us some form of universial healthcare, I wont waste my breath 'both sides' ing him. As long as we allow literal White Supremacists drag this country to Hell, I will overlook a whole damn lot. I dont want to, but sometimes you need to realize the bigger problem is white supremacy. Everything Obama did wrong, Romney and McCain would have done and worse. Free pass? Show me someone who would do better, and I will show you someone who will also commit war crimes. If Hell exists, being the leader of a major nation is an automatic ticket. Idealism cannot go unchecked by pragmatism.

If we want a higher bar than Obama, then we need to actually put in people who are of a higher bar. All Trump has done is made me miss Bush, and Bush was TERRIBLE.

Yes but this attitude is going to continuously lower the bar. After Bush all anyone wanted was better than bush. And we got it and everyone acted like he was the second coming of Christ, superman and the easter bunny rolled into one despite the fact that he's responsible for countless civilian deaths and the financial ruination of God knows how many of his own people in order to better serve the interests of banks, wallstreet and the arms industry. Then Trump came and all people want is better than Trump. And best case scenario is looking like we get Biden. Who's worse than Obama. We'll get someone worse than Biden after that from Republicans and people will just want better than whoever that guy is and we'll end up with someone between him and Biden. And this will continue as planned to continuously that nobody who would ever stand up to those corporate interests ever gets elected.

Ok, which of these people would have done better? John McCain (with Sarah Palin), Mitt Romney, or Hillary Clinton?

Unless you think one of them would have actually done a better job, then none of this matters.

None of them they all would have been bad. That doesn't make Obama good. Hilary would have been better than Trump she still would have been bad. My issue isn't that Obama was the worst president, my issue is he was a bad president that everyone acts like he was a good person and dimitsses all of the truly horrible things he's responsible for.

If Obama is a bad President, then who is a good one? Where does Obama list on your list of bad Presidents compared to good?

Know what? Answer me this. Is it wrong to vote for Biden if it comes down to Biden vs Trump?

 

[Agema]

If Obama is a bad President, then who is a good one? Where does Obama list on your list of bad Presidents compared to good?

I think it's not that Obama was a bad president, he just wasn't a particularly good one either. He's certainly going to be nowhere near the big league of the likes of Washington, Lincoln, FDR, etc. He'll go down in history somewhere around the upper middle (second quartile sort of area): one who got some decent achievements but mostly just kept everything ticking over.

 

[Trunkage]

None of them they all would have been bad. That doesn't make Obama good. Hilary would have been better than Trump she still would have been bad. My issue isn't that Obama was the worst president, my issue is he was a bad president that everyone acts like he was a good person and dimitsses all of the truly horrible things he's responsible for.

Everyone? The closest to a supporter of Obama on this forum doesn't really call him good. How many is this everybody?

In 2018, you had a choice between Trump and Clinton. Both are bad. No one disagrees with you. One is way worse than the other. It's called democracy. Voting for the person that causes the least damage

But, Salune has been saying this for a number of posts now. I don't know why I think I can make a difference here.

 

[CheetoDust_v1legacy]

If Obama is a bad President, then who is a good one? Where does Obama list on your list of bad Presidents compared to good?

Know what? Answer me this. Is it wrong to vote for Biden if it comes down to Biden vs Trump?

In modern times? Probably nobody. The entire purpose of money in politics is to keep people who might help common people out of power. I'm not saying Obama wasn't better than Trump. He was. And Biden would be too. My issue is that people are forgetting that America was still a shithole with racism, gun violence, an opiod crisis, people losing their homes. People working 60+ hours a week to barely pay bills. Hell people are starting to look back fondly on Bush and McCain because Trump has lowered the bar for Republicans that much.

None of them they all would have been bad. That doesn't make Obama good. Hilary would have been better than Trump she still would have been bad. My issue isn't that Obama was the worst president, my issue is he was a bad president that everyone acts like he was a good person and dimitsses all of the truly horrible things he's responsible for.

Everyone? The closest to a supporter of Obama on this forum doesn't really call him good. How many is this everybody?

Everyone involved in giving him a nobel prize an afternoon into his presidency because he made good speeches and could make a three point shot. Because other than those two things he really hadn't accomplished much by then. Hell he even used to make jokes about Jesus and Superman himself because that was the narrative surrounding him.

In 2018, you had a choice between Trump and Clinton. Both are bad. No one disagrees with you. One is way worse than the other. It's called democracy. Voting for the person that causes the least damage

And Hilary would have been worse than Obama. Still a downward slide. Yes, of those two Hilary should be elected. But maybe the fact that elections always come down to the lesser of two evils is something we should address? Might be better than accepting the slaughter of civilians via drone strike as "imperfect" behaviour for a president. Because I'm pretty sure if it was your town being bombed you wouldn't be so forgiving.

But, Salune has been saying this for a number of posts now. I don't know why I think I can make a difference here.

Because we appear to be talking past each other. The things Obama did were evil and now he's rich and famous. We shouldn't just look at it as blemishes on an otherwise good record. They're not parking violations we're talking about here. The fact that people are so desensitized to this is evidence of what I'm talking about. The bar is so low now that child murder isn't considered so bad. And just because Trump does everything that he once criticized and worse doesn't mean that those things weren't bad

 

[Trunkage]

If Obama is a bad President, then who is a good one? Where does Obama list on your list of bad Presidents compared to good?

Know what? Answer me this. Is it wrong to vote for Biden if it comes down to Biden vs Trump?

In modern times? Probably nobody. The entire purpose of money in politics is to keep people who might help common people out of power. I'm not saying Obama wasn't better than Trump. He was. And Biden would be too. My issue is that people are forgetting that America was still a shithole with racism, gun violence, an opiod crisis, people losing their homes. People working 60+ hours a week to barely pay bills. Hell people are starting to look back fondly on Bush and McCain because Trump has lowered the bar for Republicans that much.

None of them they all would have been bad. That doesn't make Obama good. Hilary would have been better than Trump she still would have been bad. My issue isn't that Obama was the worst president, my issue is he was a bad president that everyone acts like he was a good person and dimitsses all of the truly horrible things he's responsible for.

Everyone? The closest to a supporter of Obama on this forum doesn't really call him good. How many is this everybody?

Everyone involved in giving him a nobel prize an afternoon into his presidency because he made good speeches and could make a three point shot. Because other than those two things he really hadn't accomplished much by then. Hell he even used to make jokes about Jesus and Superman himself because that was the narrative surrounding him.

In 2018, you had a choice between Trump and Clinton. Both are bad. No one disagrees with you. One is way worse than the other. It's called democracy. Voting for the person that causes the least damage

And Hilary would have been worse than Obama. Still a downward slide. Yes, of those two Hilary should be elected. But maybe the fact that elections always come down to the lesser of two evils is something we should address? Might be better than accepting the slaughter of civilians via drone strike as "imperfect" behaviour for a president. Because I'm pretty sure if it was your town being bombed you wouldn't be so forgiving.

But, Salune has been saying this for a number of posts now. I don't know why I think I can make a difference here.

Because we appear to be talking past each other. The things Obama did were evil and now he's rich and famous. We shouldn't just look at it as blemishes on an otherwise good record. They're not parking violations we're talking about here. The fact that people are so desensitized to this is evidence of what I'm talking about. The bar is so low now that child murder isn't considered so bad. And just because Trump does everything that he once criticized and worse doesn't mean that those things weren't bad

Let me repeat the question. Who is denying that Obama wasn't all that good? What they're saying is that he's better than Trump. It's too separate and very distinct question. Your also going to have to prove this desensitized thing, because your on an Escapist forum. Being pro-Obama hasn't been a thing since I've been here. It's been more like 'at least he's not Romney.' I remember Deporter in Chief and Double Tap Drone strikes. It's evil. Still not as evil as Trump. Or Bush.

Also, Woodrow Wilson both got a noble peace prize. The guy who resegregated the government, invaded Russia because... commies, who showed Birth of the Nation in the White House and said it was good and was a historian who propagated the Lost Cause philosophy. Roosevelt started a coup in a country just so he could finish a canal. Maybe Nobel Peace Prizes aren't worth anything. And, even if he received an award, doesn't make him a great person. It just makes the award givers suck ups.

 

[tstorm823]

I think it's not that Obama was a bad president, he just wasn't a particularly good one either. He's certainly going to be nowhere near the big league of the likes of Washington, Lincoln, FDR, etc. He'll go down in history somewhere around the upper middle (second quartile sort of area): one who got some decent achievements but mostly just kept everything ticking over.

I think this is a pretty safe bet, and actually a pretty apt description of how scholars seem to rate presidents. It matters much less the goodness of what you do than does the total volume of legacy you leave behind. Woodrow Wilson, for example, should not keep getting ranked in the top 10. His hefty list of accomplishments only gets more controversial over time, and many modern presidents have their ranks dropped precipitously for employing a Wilsonian foreign policy. And the list of complaints about him, segregating the White House, messing up Central America, etc, only looks more repugnant over time. But man, he did a big list of stuff. Obama didn't do a big list of stuff, so he must not be as good as the bigger listed president.

Historians are dumb sometimes, is what I'm saying.

 

[Silvanus]

Ok, which of these people would have done better? John McCain (with Sarah Palin), Mitt Romney, or Hillary Clinton?

Unless you think one of them would have actually done a better job, then none of this matters.

Better than Obama? None of them.

This doesn't address my point, though. We don't only criticise a leader if the opposition is worse.

 

[Agema]

I think this is a pretty safe bet, and actually a pretty apt description of how scholars seem to rate presidents. It matters much less the goodness of what you do than does the total volume of legacy you leave behind. Woodrow Wilson, for example, should not keep getting ranked in the top 10. His hefty list of accomplishments only gets more controversial over time, and many modern presidents have their ranks dropped precipitously for employing a Wilsonian foreign policy. And the list of complaints about him, segregating the White House, messing up Central America, etc, only looks more repugnant over time. But man, he did a big list of stuff. Obama didn't do a big list of stuff, so he must not be as good as the bigger listed president.

Historians are dumb sometimes, is what I'm saying.

Maybe. I think there's a big question here about how you interpret things due to the risk of anarchronism. What is repugnant to us now isn't necessarily a fair way to judge what someone did 100 years ago, because they could not reasonably operate in their day on the basis of morality a century ahead.

If we take as a basic standpoint that the fundamental role of president is to oversee the betterment of one's country, it becomes perhaps clearer to analyse performance. If we bear in mind Wilson set up the Federal Reserve, progressive income taxation, various labour laws (etc.) and constraint on over-powerful coprorations, and was instrumental in the setting up of the League of Nations (thus forerunner of the UN), all which history would judge to have been broadly long-term beneficial / successful, he not only did a lot of Big Things, he did a lot of Good Big Things. They seemingly worked well for generations, and we can't reasonably blame Wilson if circumstances 100 years down the line means those institutions and policies may no longer work so well.

I would argue this is superior to a leader who merely sat back and did little whilst the country happened to be doing well: that leader has in a way succeeded even if the success was non-interference, but it's more impressive to find good solutions to problems than to happen to be in charge whilst everything is going smoothly.

 

[ObsidianJones_v1legacy]

None of them they all would have been bad. That doesn't make Obama good. Hilary would have been better than Trump she still would have been bad. My issue isn't that Obama was the worst president, my issue is he was a bad president that everyone acts like he was a good person and dimitsses all of the truly horrible things he's responsible for.

So, let me sum it up like this. I'm an idealist. At my core, I want my leaders, friends, and co-workers to be sterling. Absolutely Pillars of the Community.

But I'm not blind to the world. This world isn't a comic book. This world was built on mechanisms that are fueled with backdoor deals I really wish weren't apart of our day to day lives. Obama, Clinton, Trump or Bush didn't set the political world down corruption and lip service to donors. But if people voted for well being and intelligent decisions, there wouldn't need to be billions of dollars funneled to overblown media and false promises just for the chance of stepping into office and doing something you might think is right.

We are not a peaceful species. We're not a fair species. We want to take whatever we can see, and more often than not, it is the fear that it would cost us if we tried to take that keeps us from over reaching our bounds. That is the essence of the arm race. I suggest people read Operation Paperclip [https://www.cia.gov/library/center-for-the-study-of-intelligence/csi-publications/csi-studies/studies/vol-58-no-3/operation-paperclip-the-secret-intelligence-program-to-bring-nazi-scientists-to-america.html] by Annie Jacobsen (And I know this is very unlike me, but holy shit, is she attractive... smart women, man... smart women.) to see what we did to make sure we never went up against a Superior Force again.

Attacks on cities like Antwerp where there wasn't a bomber in sight wasn't just damaging psychologically to people who thought they were far enough from Nazis to be safe, but their same technology only needed to be refined just slightly to get to the Space Age. And every country possible (especially the US) did everything they could to sneak these scientists out to benefit their own technological advancements. They overlooked the horrors they did to get the answers... because they had the answers. That's all anyone cares about.

Drone strikes are not ethical and I hate the fact that this is a place where we can reasonably go. But the psychology of "If this is what they are willing to show the world, what else do they have" has been an effective strategy for dominance since the first person who came to a heavy rock fight with a sharp rock fastened onto a large stick.

There are disgusting, vile things that come with leadership. That's why I question anyone who wants to do it. But if you at least try to benefit people directly, and not just a nebulous idea of "creating a strong nation", that can not be ignored.

 

[Saelune]

If Obama is a bad President, then who is a good one? Where does Obama list on your list of bad Presidents compared to good?

I think it's not that Obama was a bad president, he just wasn't a particularly good one either. He's certainly going to be nowhere near the big league of the likes of Washington, Lincoln, FDR, etc. He'll go down in history somewhere around the upper middle (second quartile sort of area): one who got some decent achievements but mostly just kept everything ticking over.

Washington owned slaves. Obama did not. I like Washington, but I and you and everyone else are willing to overlook that he owned slaves because we realize it was 'just how it was then'. We overlook that. It wasnt right of him though, it was actually really fucked up. No one should ever have owned slaves, and it was never actually ok. But to condemn Obama while turning a blind eye to slavery, I think that is very hypocritical.

Everyone arguing with me about this is neglecting that my point that Obama's greatness is relative to the terribleness of the other Presidents. We do deserve better than Obama, but until the US stops accepting White Supremacists and Rapists and Religious Nutjobs as people who should be in charge, Obama is above and beyond in quality.

We arent choosing the best person ever for President, we are choosing from a limited pool. We need to be reasonable about that. Bernie wont be perfect either, nor would Warren, and certainly not Biden or Yang, but as long as the alternative is scum like Trump, we need to be reasonable.

 

[Saelune]

Ok, which of these people would have done better? John McCain (with Sarah Palin), Mitt Romney, or Hillary Clinton?

Unless you think one of them would have actually done a better job, then none of this matters.

Better than Obama? None of them.

This doesn't address my point, though. We don't only criticise a leader if the opposition is worse.

But it addresses and proves my point. Remember, this all started from an argument with Seanchaidh. He has stated quite clearly he will not vote for anyone but Bernie.