Barack Obama had the most successful presidency in decades

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Barack Obama had the most successful presidency in decades

«‹›12 »

Pancreas: Sep 1, 2007; RAPING WOMEN IS AWESOME AS LONG AS THE RAPIST HATES AMERIKKKA AND IF YOU DISAGREE YOU'RE A GODDAMNED FASCIST FEMINAZI WHO PROBABLY EVEN THINKS THOSE STUPID BITCHES SHOULD HAVE THE RIGHT TO VOTE

THIS IS WHAT I REALLY BELIEVE

With more than 95% of his mandate finished, it's about time to evaluate Obama's legacy. He has a relatively low overall approval rating at the moment - he will finish far below Clinton, on par with Bush, and above Reagan -, but it seems that for Democrats he has been the best president since Kennedy. The problem, of course, is the intense hate that Republicans feel for him:

This an interesting situation considering that, if anything, Democrats should have been disappointed by him the most. His lofty campaign goals, such as purging corporate interests out of politics, protecting whistleblowers and establishing bipartisanship all failed spectacularly. He has pushed for centrist/conservative issues in many ways, including the recent Trans-Atlantic trade deal, for no apparent reason other than that it is something he actually believes in. Even in areas where he upheld leftist principles, he did so with a heavy slant of Republican influence. His Affordable Care Act is the biggest step towards socialized healthcare in the history of America, and yet it was executed through a convoluted system that was initially planned by conservatives. In his handling of economics, Obama has pushed (somewhat timidly) for increasing corporate tax and for increasing tax rates for the richer; however, at the same time, he also aggressively decreased government spending since his first year in office,. Due to all this, it has been hard to characterize Obama's "true" political affiliation. Some describe him as a hardcore leftist[/rule], while others see him [url=http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/obama-is-a-republican/]as a bona fide republican. In my view, he represents the type of centrism that has come to dominate American politics for decades now, a sort of achievable middle-ground that is less and less democratic, and more and more transparently reliant on economic interests and backroom deals for its decisions.

In practical terms, Obama's achievements have been incredible. In foreign affairs, the assassination of Bin Laden, the (belated) end of the Iraq War and the recent success of negotiations to diplomatically end the Iranian nuclear crisis are major successes. Internally, he was responsible for a sustained economic recovery after the worst period in US economic history since the Great Depression, and was able to reduce unemployment by almost 30% since taking office. The Affordable Care Act, even if underwhelming, was a monumental achievement in itself, already insuring 10 million more people since its inception. Importantly, all of this has been achieved in face of incredible opposition from the Republicans, who went as far as freezing the US government for a few days in a last-ditch attempt to obstruct Obama's agenda. Even in the last years with no majority in the Legislative branch, he has been able to attain big and small victories, such as the aforementioned negotiations with Iran and reinstating diplomatic relations with Cuba.

The list of shortcomings of Obama's presidency has also been substantial. From the incredible expansion in the apparatus of governmental spying - including a public persecution of a legitimate whistleblower - and international assassination (drones) capabilities to a stall in key domestic issues (such as immigration reform and gun control), a variety of decisions made by his administration will likely come back to haunt Democrats and Republicans alike in the coming years and decades. The mismanagement of Nato's expansion and the ensuing crisis in Ukraine and the rapid rise of ISIS as a result of continued mismanagement of affairs in the Middle East are already consolidated threats to American interests, and the Trans Atlantic deal is another example of a decision that might have terrible environmental and economic impact.

Overall, in my opinion, the Obama presidency has been more successful than the celebrated Clinton's. He was able to have stronger impact in many areas, and to do it in ways that will likely not be easily reversed, as the Supreme Court decision on the ACA has underscored. The outside perception of Obama, which has been overwhelmingly positive except in countries directly affected by his drone strikes, brought back some of the goodwill that was lost with Bush's disastrous two term presidency. Ironically, however, Obama might in time become an icon similar to what Reagan represents to Republicans, who remember him for his (perceived) good deeds, while the negative long-term impact of his actions are largely ignored. The long term consequences of Obama's administration are obviously still unknown, but I tend to subscribe to rather dark scenarios where the continuous escalation in civilian surveillance and a possible worsening of global warming will be directly ascribed to decisions made during the past 8 years. It doesn't seem likely that any major contender from the next election will radically change the direction that Obama has set the country in. This, in itself, underscores how important his presidency has been, and how big its impact will likely be.

# ? Jul 30, 2015 00:29

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Apr 19, 2024 20:32

Helsing: Aug 23, 2003; DON'T POST IN THE ELECTION THREAD UNLESS YOU JOE BIDEN

The assassination of Bin Ladin is a meaningless "achievement" that lets Americans beat their chests but achieves nothing of significance. The Iraq War was ended by the Iraqi parliament when they refused to continue providing American soldiers with immunity under Iraqi law under the Status of Forces agreement that was being negotiated - had it been Obama's call there would have been some 10,000 soldiers still in Iraq. Meanwhile he has further destabilized the world by continuing to support Israel unconditionally and by running an illegal and morally atrocious campaign of assassinations.

The sustained economic recovery you speak of has been the worst on record for working people though it's true that Obama's corporate donors have done pretty well out of the deal, and he passed up a once in a generation opportunity to reform Wall Street. His stimulus package was too small and while you can correctly say that Republican obstructionism would have made an adequately sized stimulus package impossible that doesn't change the fact that Obama wasted a lot of stimulus dollars on ineffective tax cuts rather than spending initiatives that would have been more effective. He also rhetorically hamstrung himself by pivoting to deficit reduction far too quickly, and in many ways his political stupidity set the stage for the Republican wave in 2010 which has caused endless headaches ever since.

Chances are whatever meager recovery he's overseen - much of which is due to the natural economic cycle and not his own policies - will be more than wiped out by the next financial crisis which he will inevitably bear responsibility for. Under his watch there have been zero prosecutions of the Wall Street criminals who blew up the world economy, which sends a pretty clear signal that Washington doesn't care how badly you gently caress the country as long as you keep the campaign donations flowing.

The Affordable Care act gives people lovely insurance, often with high co-pays, and effectively institutionalizes a predatory insurance system that was previously viewed as unacceptable. The country will now be stuck with parasitic companies that leech billions of dollars of dead weight loss out of the economy for zero benefit, making real reform harder and not easier. While there's no doubt that many people will benefit in the short term from some aspects of the bill it is a terrible piece of legislation. Obama could have gotten a much better bill passed if he hadn't spent so much time fruitlessly chasing Republican votes. People already seem to be forgetting that a much better bill could have been passed if Obama hadn't waited until Ted Kennedy died, or if Obama's team hadn't managed to gently caress that special election up so bad that a Republican got elected in Kennedy's old seat.

The only thing Obama is actually competent at is winning elections - and even then he's overseen the decimation of the Democrats at the state level and in Congress. His incoherent and damaging domestic and foreign policies have left America and the world in a perilous state and now to top it off he's pushing a trade bill that will give private corporate tribunals a veto over domestic legislation and which will entrench the most regressive intellectual property regime imaginable, making life saving drugs impossibly expensive for many people.

He's easily one of the worst presidents of the last fifty years and it's telling that you'd compare him to another notably horrendous president, John F. Kennedy, while ignoring Lyndon B. Johsnon, a man who for all his flaws was at least able to pass some decent domestic legislation.

# ? Jul 30, 2015 00:52

downout: Jul 6, 2009

Helsing posted:

...

He's easily one of the worst presidents of the last fifty years and it's telling that you'd compare him to another notably horrendous president, John F. Kennedy, while ignoring Lyndon B. Johsnon, a man who for all his flaws was at least able to pass some decent domestic legislation.

Some of what you posted has some legitimacy (missed chances at Wall Street reform and/or investigations and prosecutions), but this sentence is laughable following Bush's presidency. History will probably remember Obama's presidency in a good light especially because it was preceded by an unprecedented eight years of disaster.

# ? Jul 30, 2015 01:11

Chelb: Oct 24, 2010; I'm gonna show SA-kun my shitposting!

Each of the above views are wrong. Obama has been a thoroughly middling president, neither extraordinarily good nor notably bad, whose successes were mostly overshadowed by his failures, and was at best a faltering stopgap against conservative resurgence. The economic recovery under his presidency was inevitable; his attitude against Israel has both been disappointing and perhaps impossible to prevent given the power of the Jewish lobby in the U.S. and Republican partisanship. The one unambiguously positive outcome of his presidency is the push for the Iranian nuclear deal, which I applaud. Everything else must be littered with caveats and half-way measures, from the AFA to the de-escalation of the Iraqi war.

And yet, Democrats likely will not find such a charismatic campaigner for many years. With the state of the GOP in doubt and ecological catastrophe looming, interesting times are ahead.

Chelb fucked around with this message at 01:18 on Jul 30, 2015

# ? Jul 30, 2015 01:12

Dr. Tough: Oct 22, 2007

Helsing posted:

The assassination of Bin Ladin is a meaningless "achievement" that lets Americans beat their chests but achieves nothing of significance. The Iraq War was ended by the Iraqi parliament when they refused to continue providing American soldiers with immunity under Iraqi law under the Status of Forces agreement that was being negotiated - had it been Obama's call there would have been some 10,000 soldiers still in Iraq. Meanwhile he has further destabilized the world by continuing to support Israel unconditionally and by running an illegal and morally atrocious campaign of assassinations.

The sustained economic recovery you speak of has been the worst on record for working people though it's true that Obama's corporate donors have done pretty well out of the deal, and he passed up a once in a generation opportunity to reform Wall Street. His stimulus package was too small and while you can correctly say that Republican obstructionism would have made an adequately sized stimulus package impossible that doesn't change the fact that Obama wasted a lot of stimulus dollars on ineffective tax cuts rather than spending initiatives that would have been more effective. He also rhetorically hamstrung himself by pivoting to deficit reduction far too quickly, and in many ways his political stupidity set the stage for the Republican wave in 2010 which has caused endless headaches ever since.

Chances are whatever meager recovery he's overseen - much of which is due to the natural economic cycle and not his own policies - will be more than wiped out by the next financial crisis which he will inevitably bear responsibility for. Under his watch there have been zero prosecutions of the Wall Street criminals who blew up the world economy, which sends a pretty clear signal that Washington doesn't care how badly you gently caress the country as long as you keep the campaign donations flowing.

The Affordable Care act gives people lovely insurance, often with high co-pays, and effectively institutionalizes a predatory insurance system that was previously viewed as unacceptable. The country will now be stuck with parasitic companies that leech billions of dollars of dead weight loss out of the economy for zero benefit, making real reform harder and not easier. While there's no doubt that many people will benefit in the short term from some aspects of the bill it is a terrible piece of legislation. Obama could have gotten a much better bill passed if he hadn't spent so much time fruitlessly chasing Republican votes. People already seem to be forgetting that a much better bill could have been passed if Obama hadn't waited until Ted Kennedy died, or if Obama's team hadn't managed to gently caress that special election up so bad that a Republican got elected in Kennedy's old seat.

The only thing Obama is actually competent at is winning elections - and even then he's overseen the decimation of the Democrats at the state level and in Congress. His incoherent and damaging domestic and foreign policies have left America and the world in a perilous state and now to top it off he's pushing a trade bill that will give private corporate tribunals a veto over domestic legislation and which will entrench the most regressive intellectual property regime imaginable, making life saving drugs impossibly expensive for many people.

He's easily one of the worst presidents of the last fifty years and it's telling that you'd compare him to another notably horrendous president, John F. Kennedy, while ignoring Lyndon B. Johsnon, a man who for all his flaws was at least able to pass some decent domestic legislation.

He also didn't free Mumia

# ? Jul 30, 2015 01:20

Yoshifan823: Feb 19, 2007; by FactsAreUseless

Pancreas posted:

With more than 95% of his mandate finished, it's about time to evaluate Obama's legacy. He has a relatively low overall approval rating at the moment - he will finish far below Clinton, on par with Bush, and above Reagan -, but it seems that for Democrats he has been the best president since Kennedy. The problem, of course, is the intense hate that Republicans feel for him:

This graph is fascinating to me. Looking at it, it seems that change-wise, Dems and Republicans agree on when approval should get higher or lower, it just depends on the starting point for each individual president, with two exceptions: Gerald Ford's Entire Sad Little Presidency and Obama around the midpoint of his term.

Also, disapproval for Obama started low with Republicans and just got lower, so much so that his highest point with them was lower than literally any other democratic president, with the tiny exception of the very beginning of Obama's first time being slightly higher than year 2ish of Clinton. That's right, at his highest Obama was had a lower approval rating than LBJ at his lowest, Carter at his lowest, and Clinton at his intern-fuckingest.

# ? Jul 30, 2015 01:21

ntan1: Apr 29, 2009; sempai noticed me

Helsing posted:

The assassination of Bin Ladin is a meaningless "achievement" that lets Americans beat their chests but achieves nothing of significance. The Iraq War was ended by the Iraqi parliament when they refused to continue providing American soldiers with immunity under Iraqi law under the Status of Forces agreement that was being negotiated - had it been Obama's call there would have been some 10,000 soldiers still in Iraq. Meanwhile he has further destabilized the world by continuing to support Israel unconditionally and by running an illegal and morally atrocious campaign of assassinations.

The sustained economic recovery you speak of has been the worst on record for working people though it's true that Obama's corporate donors have done pretty well out of the deal, and he passed up a once in a generation opportunity to reform Wall Street. His stimulus package was too small and while you can correctly say that Republican obstructionism would have made an adequately sized stimulus package impossible that doesn't change the fact that Obama wasted a lot of stimulus dollars on ineffective tax cuts rather than spending initiatives that would have been more effective. He also rhetorically hamstrung himself by pivoting to deficit reduction far too quickly, and in many ways his political stupidity set the stage for the Republican wave in 2010 which has caused endless headaches ever since.

Chances are whatever meager recovery he's overseen - much of which is due to the natural economic cycle and not his own policies - will be more than wiped out by the next financial crisis which he will inevitably bear responsibility for. Under his watch there have been zero prosecutions of the Wall Street criminals who blew up the world economy, which sends a pretty clear signal that Washington doesn't care how badly you gently caress the country as long as you keep the campaign donations flowing.

The Affordable Care act gives people lovely insurance, often with high co-pays, and effectively institutionalizes a predatory insurance system that was previously viewed as unacceptable. The country will now be stuck with parasitic companies that leech billions of dollars of dead weight loss out of the economy for zero benefit, making real reform harder and not easier. While there's no doubt that many people will benefit in the short term from some aspects of the bill it is a terrible piece of legislation. Obama could have gotten a much better bill passed if he hadn't spent so much time fruitlessly chasing Republican votes. People already seem to be forgetting that a much better bill could have been passed if Obama hadn't waited until Ted Kennedy died, or if Obama's team hadn't managed to gently caress that special election up so bad that a Republican got elected in Kennedy's old seat.

The only thing Obama is actually competent at is winning elections - and even then he's overseen the decimation of the Democrats at the state level and in Congress. His incoherent and damaging domestic and foreign policies have left America and the world in a perilous state and now to top it off he's pushing a trade bill that will give private corporate tribunals a veto over domestic legislation and which will entrench the most regressive intellectual property regime imaginable, making life saving drugs impossibly expensive for many people.

He's easily one of the worst presidents of the last fifty years and it's telling that you'd compare him to another notably horrendous president, John F. Kennedy, while ignoring Lyndon B. Johsnon, a man who for all his flaws was at least able to pass some decent domestic legislation.

You dont live in the US do you?

# ? Jul 30, 2015 01:21

Helsing: Aug 23, 2003; DON'T POST IN THE ELECTION THREAD UNLESS YOU JOE BIDEN

downout posted:

Some of what you posted has some legitimacy (missed chances at Wall Street reform and/or investigations and prosecutions), but this sentence is laughable following Bush's presidency. History will probably remember Obama's presidency in a good light especially because it was preceded by an unprecedented eight years of disaster.

Rollofthedice posted:

Each of the above views are wrong. Obama has been a thoroughly middling president, neither extraordinarily good nor notably bad, whose successes were mostly overshadowed by his failures, and was at best a faltering stopgap against conservative resurgence. The economic recovery under his presidency was inevitable; his attitude against Israel has both been disappointing and perhaps impossible to prevent given the power of the Jewish lobby in the U.S. and Republican partisanship. The one unambiguously positive outcome of his presidency is the push for the Iranian nuclear deal, which I applaud. Everything else must be littered with caveats and half-way measures, from the AFA to the de-escalation of the Iraqi war.

And yet, Democrats likely will not find such a charismatic campaigner for many years. With the state of the GOP in doubt and ecological catastrophe looming, interesting times are ahead.

Well realistically speaking every leader is unique and faces a unique set of circumstances so you can't meaningfully compare them to each other but I think Obama stands out as worse than, say, Clinton or Bush 41 is the degree of squandered opportunity. He had a majority in Congress and a strong mandate and he mostly wasted it or diluted what he could have accomplished with corporate handouts.

He spent more energy trying to cut social security and pass his lovely trade bill than he spent trying to do anything meaningful about Wall Street. Not exactly a sterling legacy.

Dr. Tough posted:

He also didn't free Mumia

Well played.

# ? Jul 30, 2015 03:32

Abner Cadaver II: Apr 21, 2009; TONIGHT!

Barack Obama is fractionally better than Lyndon B. Johnson for not waging an unethical land war in Asia, just the unethical air war.

# ? Jul 30, 2015 03:40

Willa Rogers: Mar 11, 2005

The greatest success of Obama's presidency has been in getting Democratic approval for policies that, under Bush or other Republicans, they would have otherwise opposed.

# ? Jul 30, 2015 03:50

WhiskeyJuvenile: Feb 15, 2002; by Nyc_Tattoo

Obama is the best president ever, which is damning with faint praise, but still

# ? Jul 30, 2015 03:58

icantfindaname: Jul 1, 2008

Obummer's only real major failure was completely throwing away his initial mandate in some bizzarre attempt to placate conservatives. The rest of his policy has not been that great, but has been markedly better than the policy coming out of the White House since Reagan, so at least that's something

# ? Jul 30, 2015 04:07

420 Gank Mid: Dec 26, 2008; WARNING: This poster is a huge bitch!

Rollofthedice posted:

The economic recovery under his presidency was inevitable

dnddoesnotundertandeconomics.txt

# ? Jul 30, 2015 04:53

Chelb: Oct 24, 2010; I'm gonna show SA-kun my shitposting!

420 Gank Mid posted:

dnddoesnotundertandeconomics.txt

*pssst*

(it was a joke post)

I just thought it was fitting that, considering that this seems like the barack obama freshman political science essay thread, I wrote a poorly-written opinion that contrasted with the first two.

Chelb fucked around with this message at 04:59 on Jul 30, 2015

# ? Jul 30, 2015 04:55

Slow News Day: Jul 4, 2007

Obama's public persecution of whistleblowers and massive expansion of the surveillance state will overshadow all of his successes.

History will remember Obama as the president who sowed the seeds of the Orwellian America of 2055.

# ? Jul 30, 2015 04:59

Tubesock: Apr 20, 2002

Pancreas posted:

With more than 95% of his mandate finished, it's about time to evaluate Obama's legacy. He has a relatively low overall approval rating at the moment - he will finish far below Clinton, on par with Bush, and above Reagan -, but it seems that for Democrats he has been the best president since Kennedy. The problem, of course, is the intense hate that Republicans feel for him:

My eye notices a trend in the disapproval ratings. They appear to be getting lower over time, while approval ratings seem to remain the same. I can't be bothered to look up the data and run a regression or something. Is it just a coincidence in the data that Obama is the most recent president and the most hated, or can we expect the next president to be even MORE hated due to some underlying thing happening in American society?

# ? Jul 30, 2015 05:14

Rent-A-Cop: Oct 15, 2004; I posted my food for USPOL Thanksgiving!

Pancreas posted:

the (belated) end of the Iraq War

Which never actually ended and now it's time for Iraq War 3: ISIS Edition.

# ? Jul 30, 2015 05:18

ANIME AKBAR: Jan 25, 2007; afu~

The thing that bugs me the most is the credit Obama gets for the recent successes of the LGBT movement. I can't recall a single substantial thing Obama or his administration has done for it. He sat still for two years while the Log Cabin Republicans sued the government to repeal the law, which Obama's DoJ worked to defend. It was often suggested that Obama, as commander in chief of the entire armed forces, could unilaterally issue an executive order prohibiting DADT from being applied. Apologist cried "he can't just ignore the sacred law!" Then when a district court did just that, the DoJ requested a stay on the ruling, got turned down by the district court, but kept pressing until the ninth circuit court granted the stay, thus preserving DADT. So basically, a loving Republican organization did the fighting for LGBT rights while Obama's administration did just about everything in their power to gently caress over the LGBT movement. Ultimately congress (loving congress) took the initiative and passed a bill repealing DADT. The bill fell in Obama's lap, so he signed it. There were a lot of cameras and people smiled and I think I threw up a little bit.

The take home message is that the LGBT movement made great progress not because of Obama, but rather in spite of him.

# ? Jul 30, 2015 08:10

Homura and Sickle: Apr 21, 2013

ANIME AKBAR posted:

The thing that bugs me the most is the credit Obama gets for the recent successes of the LGBT movement. I can't recall a single substantial thing Obama or his administration has done for it. He sat still for two years while the Log Cabin Republicans sued the government to repeal the law, which Obama's DoJ worked to defend. It was often suggested that Obama, as commander in chief of the entire armed forces, could unilaterally issue an executive order prohibiting DADT from being applied. Apologist cried "he can't just ignore the sacred law!" Then when a district court did just that, the DoJ requested a stay on the ruling, got turned down by the district court, but kept pressing until the ninth circuit court granted the stay, thus preserving DADT. So basically, a loving Republican organization did the fighting for LGBT rights while Obama's administration did just about everything in their power to gently caress over the LGBT movement. Ultimately congress (loving congress) took the initiative and passed a bill repealing DADT. The bill fell in Obama's lap, so he signed it. There were a lot of cameras and people smiled and I think I threw up a little bit.

The take home message is that the LGBT movement made great progress not because of Obama, but rather in spite of him.

You're forgetting helping DOMA being struck down by refusing to defend it in court. His administration has done great things for transgender rights as well.

# ? Jul 30, 2015 08:24

Nonsense: Jan 26, 2007

President Obama has yet to prove his wife did not say whitey on tape!

Also Obama squandering his honeymoon period and deciding to throw ice cubes into a fryer for a lot of his first term, and then not punishing Joe Lieberman.

# ? Jul 30, 2015 08:33

ANIME AKBAR: Jan 25, 2007; afu~

Jagchosis posted:

You're forgetting helping DOMA being struck down by refusing to defend it in court. His administration has done great things for transgender rights as well.

The most you could say for Obama is that sometimes he stepped aside and allowed other people to fight the important battles without interfering. I don't see that as extraordinary. He also definitely has given some relief to federal employees and contractors, for which he deserves some credit. But that's because moves like that required practically no political risk on his part. He hasn't spent any political capital on the LGBT movement, unlike the Log Cabin Republicans who basically became pariahs to advocate their cause. Ironically, Obama is going to be the one getting the credit.

# ? Jul 30, 2015 14:18

Venomous: Nov 7, 2011

If everything goes to poo poo when Hillary is in office, there will be another Republican president, and Obama will be blamed for it in the long run. I mean, it won't be his fault completely, but goodness knows he'll be a good scapegoat.

# ? Jul 30, 2015 14:58

ToxicSlurpee: Nov 5, 2003; -=SEND HELP=-; Pillbug

Venomous posted:

If everything goes to poo poo when Hillary is in office, there will be another Republican president, and Obama will be blamed for it in the long run. I mean, it won't be his fault completely, but goodness knows he'll be a good scapegoat.

What do you mean "will be?" He already is. Literally everything wrong is gets pinned on Obama by the entirety of the right.

# ? Jul 30, 2015 15:08

TheImmigrant: Jan 18, 2011

He's been a disappointment. What Democrat partisans hail as his signature accomplishment - the Affordable Care Act - is little more than a gift to insurance companies. He embraced and even enhanced many of Bush's more objectionable policies, both at home and abroad. He did nothing to reform the financial sector, instead treating symptoms after they appear. His principles, if they exist, are confused and inconsistent.

Obama has been better than Bush, true enough. In the same way, syphilis is preferable to HIV.

# ? Jul 30, 2015 15:16

Venomous: Nov 7, 2011

ToxicSlurpee posted:

What do you mean "will be?" He already is. Literally everything wrong is gets pinned on Obama by the entirety of the right.

Yeah, but that image would be somewhat validated if the poo poo were to hit the fan. It wouldn't just be 'Obama is poo poo because [something that doesn't have much impact in the long run]', it'll be 'Obama and Hillary (or whoever else) are poo poo because their left-wing economics have hosed up the country, and we have evidence to back this up'. That would have a greater impact than the current 'Obama bad because bad' line, because the right would use it as a stick to beat the Democrats with at every opportunity, and the public would easily lap it up.

# ? Jul 30, 2015 16:16

sean10mm: Jun 29, 2005; It's a Mad, Mad, Mad, MAD-2R World

There seems to be an epic lack of any sense of scale here when people say Obama, who ended two land wars in Asia, is only "marginally" better than the guys who instigated massive unjustified land wars in Asia. Jesus loving Christ, people.

Pakistan Body Count claims 3,500 dead from drone attacks since 2004, which is the highest number I can find with a quick Google search, so for simplicity sake let's blame Obama for everything, and then round it up to...5,000 to account for anyplace else getting droned, and assume all 5,000 are innocent bystanders straight-up murdered by America.

The Lancet study thinks the Iraq War by itself resulted in over 600,000 extra deaths just through 2006. But let's go with the lowest estimates, because obviously everyone is being unfair to Bush, which gives us around 150,000 Iraqi civilians directly killed by that war. And we'll ignore Afghanistan because that was "the good one" supposedly.

By being as biased as possible against Obama and in favor of Bush he's still... 30 times better than Bush at not murdering civilians?

# ? Jul 30, 2015 17:04

Farmer Crack-Ass: Jan 2, 2001; this is me posting irl

I can never forgive Barack Obama for failing to go after even the most blatantly egregious cases of torture committed by American agents, including at least one incident where a person was literally tortured to death. "We probably tortured some folks ... we mustn't be sanctimonious."

I'm also angry about the Attorney General stating on the record that some bank executives are literally too important to be criminally prosecuted for money laundering, and I'm not sure I'll ever forgive that either.

But I think what I'm most angry about is that among all the feasible outcomes of both the 2008 and 2012 elections, this was probably by far the best of them all.

# ? Jul 30, 2015 17:04

DarkCrawler: Apr 6, 2009; by vyelkin

The thing is, the thread title is completely right, but U.S. has such extremes of "good" and "bad" presidencies that it only makes him a bit better then the average, I'd say.

# ? Jul 30, 2015 17:14

computer parts: Nov 18, 2010; PLEASE CLAP

enraged_camel posted:

Obama's public persecution of whistleblowers and massive expansion of the surveillance state will overshadow all of his successes.

History will remember Obama as the president who sowed the seeds of the Orwellian America of 2055.

No, they'll remember first black president.

# ? Jul 30, 2015 17:38

TheImmigrant: Jan 18, 2011

computer parts posted:

No, they'll remember first black president.

Do we remember Kennedy as the first Catholic president today?

# ? Jul 30, 2015 17:45

computer parts: Nov 18, 2010; PLEASE CLAP

TheImmigrant posted:

Do we remember Kennedy as the first Catholic president today?

If black people are treated in the future how Catholics are today then we will have a great success on our hands anyway.

# ? Jul 30, 2015 17:47

ToxicSlurpee: Nov 5, 2003; -=SEND HELP=-; Pillbug

TheImmigrant posted:

Do we remember Kennedy as the first Catholic president today?

It actually does come up from time to time but mostly we remember him as the most recent successful assassination.

# ? Jul 30, 2015 17:50

A Winner is Jew: Feb 14, 2008; by exmarx

Venomous posted:

Yeah, but that image would be somewhat validated if the poo poo were to hit the fan. It wouldn't just be 'Obama is poo poo because [something that doesn't have much impact in the long run]', it'll be 'Obama and Hillary (or whoever else) are poo poo because their left-wing economics have hosed up the country, and we have evidence to back this up'. That would have a greater impact than the current 'Obama bad because bad' line, because the right would use it as a stick to beat the Democrats with at every opportunity, and the public would easily lap it up.

They don't need to validate poo poo when a significant number of people actually believes that Obama was president during Katrina.

# ? Jul 30, 2015 17:52

mobby_6kl: Aug 9, 2009; by Fluffdaddy

Pancreas posted:

With more than 95% of his mandate finished, it's about time to evaluate Obama's legacy. He has a relatively low overall approval rating at the moment - he will finish far below Clinton, on par with Bush, and above Reagan -, but it seems that for Democrats he has been the best president since Kennedy. The problem, of course, is the intense hate that Republicans feel for him:

Most achievements seem rather questionable, at best.

However, this chart is really what got my attention. Goddamn, you need to do something so that that 2/3s of the country doesn't feel they're getting hosed over by the executive for 8-year stretches of time. This poo poo can't be good... for anything.

# ? Jul 30, 2015 17:57

V. Illych L.: Apr 11, 2008; ASK ME ABOUT LUMBER

mobby_6kl posted:

Most achievements seem rather questionable, at best.

However, this chart is really what got my attention. Goddamn, you need to do something so that that 2/3s of the country doesn't feel they're getting hosed over by the executive for 8-year stretches of time. This poo poo can't be good... for anything.

welcome to the two-party system

# ? Jul 30, 2015 17:59

TheImmigrant: Jan 18, 2011

V. Illych L. posted:

welcome to the two-party system

My dream for 2016 is a four-way race, with Trump and Sanders running as independents.

# ? Jul 30, 2015 18:03

Venomous: Nov 7, 2011

A Winner is Jew posted:

They don't need to validate poo poo when a significant number of people actually believes that Obama was president during Katrina.

That doesn't really matter at this point when Hillary is very likely to win next year. If the presidency was at risk because of it, then you would be right, but it's very unlikely that the GOP will retake the White House next year without another major recession.

Hell, the presidency doesn't really matter anyway because the GOP will likely have Congress through 2020, so God knows what poo poo they'll be able to push through over the next few years.

# ? Jul 30, 2015 19:24

Lawman 0: Aug 17, 2010

TheImmigrant posted:

My dream for 2016 is a four-way race, with Trump and Sanders running as independents.

# ? Jul 30, 2015 19:29

Strudel Man: May 19, 2003; ROME DID NOT HAVE ROBOTS, FUCKWIT

Tubesock posted:

My eye notices a trend in the disapproval ratings. They appear to be getting lower over time, while approval ratings seem to remain the same. I can't be bothered to look up the data and run a regression or something. Is it just a coincidence in the data that Obama is the most recent president and the most hated, or can we expect the next president to be even MORE hated due to some underlying thing happening in American society?

The latter. There doesn't seem to be much room for doubt that it's a consequence of increasing partisanship within American society - this is a good article with lots of numbers. A president of the wrong party may be seen more and more as essentially the epitome of evil.

# ? Jul 30, 2015 20:01

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Apr 19, 2024 20:32

DarkCrawler: Apr 6, 2009; by vyelkin

So, uh...any other possible reason for republicans hating Obama twice as much as the next hated democrat besides his skin color? Because he is like the least confrontational president ever.

# ? Jul 30, 2015 20:20

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Barack Obama had the most successful presidency in decades

«‹›12 »