Agreed, I don't think Obama is doing so bad a job.
American Politics
- Thread starter Raoul
- Start date
- Status
As someone who lived in America through all of Obama's reign and before his initial election, I can tell you he's not accomplished much at all.
I was a massive believer in his campaign because he ran it with a positive approach ( WE CAN CHANGE ) rather than a negative approach ( THE OLD REGIME ARE TO BLAME ).
Sadly, he's been a failure. He's bent over to every wish the Republicans have asked for and not been aggressive with pursuing the bills he was so passionate about.
Not going to war and fixing a few mistakes from previous Presidents does not constitute a good job in the slightest.
Finally his flip flop view on this conflict. At first he tells the Israelis to "go easy" on the Palestinians. He got heat for that from Republicans. Now his stance is to back Israel.
Shame. There was potential there.
If he hasn't accomplished what many believed its strictly down to partisan gridlock in the US. When it comes to foreign policy he's done a very good job for the reasons I outlined earlier. He also passed landmark health care legislation that no other President for the preceding century was able to accomplish. Its easy to set the bar extremely high and then claim it wasn't reached, but all things considered he's been a good President.
As I said before, removing troops from war torn countries and staying out of more wars is hardly difficult to achieve. You simply don't repeat the mistakes of those before you, thus avoiding plunging yourself into more debt.
The health care act actually isn't that great of a deal. One small piece of regulation was removed that leaves the act only half complete and that is the regulation of raised yearly premium rate. Essentially, this means that a private health care company can raise their premiums to whatever they see fit.
Interestingly enough, this small caveat was not in the bill the night before passing. Obama literally gave up and folded to the money spinners in Washington to have this included in the bill, so determined was he to pass "his" historic bill.
As for the bar being raised high, I don't think anyone is asking anything spectacular from him.
Gay marriage? Half job complete.
Raise taxes on the rich and high earning middle class? Nope.
More money into the education system?
Restricted gun laws? Never.
Raising minimum wage? Still the same.
Punish the bankers that put the world into free fall crash? Don't make me laugh.
Changes to the impact on global warming?
Reduce the dependency on oil?
The very things he wanted to change he's not even come close to accomplishing. When he had the chance to aggressively pursue them, he did not, in fear of upsetting the Republicans.
Sorry, off topic, but let's not pretend he's done anything spectacular.
The important takeaway from his foreign policy is that he more or less implemented what he said he would do on America's two key foreign policy projects - Iraq and Afghanistan. He removed all troops from Iraq and is closing down Afghanistan as well, which is obviously a credit. What more could one possibly want in this regard ? Additionally, he managed to keep the US out of Libya and Syria, where most other Presidents would probably have invaded both, with or without UN approval. So again, a favorable outcome that needs to be recognized.
You have to look at health care reform within a historical context. Many Presidents failed to implement any tangible degree of reform for most of the past century - until Obama. Its obviously not perfect, but the fact that he managed to get it through despite a highly hostile political and propaganda campaign, is a credit to him, and history will accurately reflect that "Obamacare" was the first major piece of healthcare legislation that got momentum moving towards something even more comprehensive like single payer.
Most of the items above are influenced by legislation that requires congressional approval, so its a bit bizarre blame it on Obama, especially as its no secret about how hostile Republicans have been to any of his policy ideas. So I think we can safely eliminate all of these as legitimate criticisms.
Moved the discussion in here.
Rick Perry indicted. Bahaha. Probably won't mean shit.
Those Bill Maher 'Flip A District' segments are great. http://flipadistrict.com/
It's down to the Flippable Four. Below was the last entrant to the Tweet Sixteen. Still searching for newer clips.
Those Bill Maher 'Flip A District' segments are great. http://flipadistrict.com/
It's down to the Flippable Four. Below was the last entrant to the Tweet Sixteen. Still searching for newer clips.
Last edited:
I still think it will end up with h Clinton vs j bush (possibly c rice as his vp)
Weird thing, I'll be video interviewing Rick Perry this month.. He's also going through an impeachment for abuse of powers.
Perry is a walking SNL sketch. Hope he's had plenty of time to memorize which three federal agencies he would close.
Sarah Palin is still angry that Tina Fey made her look like an idiot. I'm fairly certain Sarah did this herself.
Im American, and he hasn't achieved much because the republicans simply won't let it happen. He tried being more inclusive and got backlash from his own party. He's in a lose-lose situation but that asshole Romney wouldn't have done any better.
ACA was a good achievement...it will eventually bring us single payer. Vermont has this already I think.
But he could have been a lot more demanding of the GOP. Not compromised so much.
But he could have been a lot more demanding of the GOP. Not compromised so much.
Spot on. Its funny hearing random Obama critics appear from the bushes because he hasn't done something for them - from Israel policy to other foreign interventionism to domestic policy.
so, why didnt he push for his slightly more controversial bills in the first two years, when the democrats were holding the majority in senat and house? He could have started with the immigration reform or any other thing that he promised. Besides his failure to deliver any of his promised policies (except health care), his first campaign was about changing the culture in D.C. He did absolute jack-shit. Where is the transparency that he promised? Where did he fight corruption? Where did he stick to the core American principles like (civil) liberty?
Presidents have limited capital to work with. In Obama's case, he used nearly all of his to get his affordable care act through the Congress. Getting healthcare accepted by the public and through Congress was massive, as no other President had succeeded in making any significant progress in this regard in nearly a century.
He accomplished his two core campaign objectives of winding down the wars and reforming healthcare. If you think any President is going to eliminate corruption or make politics transparent, then you're either extremely gullible or don't understand that effective policy requires the cooperation of both parties in the executive and legislative branches, and it's no secret that Republicans have spent all of the Obama years to disrupt most of his policy initiatives.
The problem with American politics is that it's essentially a plutocracy. The wealthy decide the policies, the common people get to decide jack shit.
Democracy in the United States of America is farcical, effectively you get to choose between two parties, both of which tow the corporate line at the end of the day.
This is why I always laugh when "democracy" is brought to the table as a reason to invade, destabilise and disengage yet another country.
Democracy in the United States of America is farcical, effectively you get to choose between two parties, both of which tow the corporate line at the end of the day.
This is why I always laugh when "democracy" is brought to the table as a reason to invade, destabilise and disengage yet another country.
It is a cop out to blame Republicans for everything. They did not force him to virtually give Wall street a free pass after the global meltdown they caused by appointing ex-Wall street executives in key positions. I wish I could find the articles now but it was very well covered at that time by several journalists. They were a key donor group for him in 2008 and he basically rewarded them for that and in turn was able to raise another record amount in 2012.
This administration has been one of the least transparent in history, something that can't be passed off on the Republicans.
reforming healthcare is indeed an incredible achievement. I am not taking this away or downplaying this. But thats about it. The second part is nonsense.
The president has far less influence on foreign policy than its usually communicated. Rhetoric aside both parties agree on almost all issues anyway. There is no cut or change. The War on terror just changed to a less visible level. Its incredible unpopular to send troops anywhere; thats why he didnt do it. The interventionism and foreign policy guidelines didnt change at all. The waste of money neither.
Politicians nowadays are so scared of the pubic opinion that they promise everything, but they have a very hard time to keep their words. Lobbying and a completely irrational political process is taking care of that. Obama is exactly the same crook as any other.
He deliberately pushed immigration reform until he couldnt do it anymore. He accepts/supports global surveillance of everyone. He accepts that the CIA/NSA is blatantly lying to the congress and to the public, but doesnt change anything. He bails out wallstreet and other failed companies with tax dollars. He cant balance the budget. He was even scared to take a clear stance on marriage equality until Biden just blabbed. He failed to deliver any kind of transparency in politics (e.g. super pacs). He failed to close guantanamo. He failed to change the tax-code. There is so much more. Healthcare aside its just a a big fecking failure.
He had immense political capital after his first election. He could have dont almost anything in the first two years. Why didnt he use that? well....he bend down to pressure. Pressure from lobbists. Public pressure. Pressure from politicians. Pressure from executives. In the end he was too scared to become unpopular so he abandoned almost all his promises. The republicans play their part and that surely doesnt help help. Blaming everything on them becomes boring and is obviously distraction/political strategy.
In the end people get what they deserve. You cant expect democracy to work properly if the voters listen to foxnews (or other idiots). I remember that some of the republican candidates in the primaries, tried to imitate local slang to be more likable. Think about that for a second. It seems to be a minor thing, but it isnt. I´d never vote for a politician ever again, if he pulls a stunt like that. Politics became a abomination, where people do everything to stay in power. The level of ignorance and stupidity of the average voter is just too mind-blowing. If you reward populism, lies and short term fixes, you get exactly that.
/rant over.
Last edited:
The way money is contributed isn't down to a particular President though - its endemic of politics in the US. The Supreme Court made a major ruling on this which has allowed larger contributors more leeway to donate to campaigns.
That's politics. You may have a grand vision during the political campaign, but are forced to be pragmatic once in office, often prioritizing what you can get accomplished with the opposition party. Healthcare was a massive project for the Dems and it went through - probably at the expense of a series of smaller projects, some of which you raised above. You have to be realistic in your expectations though. One major domestic project and a foreign policy realignment from George Bush style invasions to a more diplomatic approach have eaten up plenty of his political capital.
Economy is doing pretty good.
I'd say that's quite a result considering how I was told that he was going to ruin us and that I should buy lots of guns and toilet paper for the coming apocalypse.
I'd say that's quite a result considering how I was told that he was going to ruin us and that I should buy lots of guns and toilet paper for the coming apocalypse.
There is no realignment is foreign policy. Instead of sending traditional air-strikes, the USA is sending drones. Its easier to hide from public and the outcome is the same. Obamas speech in Kairo was nice chitchat, but didnt lead to any genuine change in policy. I still cant believe that this guy won the nobel peace price (not that i expect a lot from this committee).
I also hate it, when people start to talk about "pragmatism in politics", because its a nice way to paraphrase something completely different. Pragmatism in politics means, that politicians abandon all promises, ideals, common sense, expertise or long-term thinking in favour of person gain. But who could possibly be against pragmatism? Whoever rebranded this must be a fecking genius. Well done.
The economy is doing fine despite politicians not because of them. American people are (on average) incredible creative and innovative. Thats why the standard of living is so high. Did Obama push for any meaningful economic reforms? Of course not. A transparent, open market isnt in the interest of politicians. The only difference between republicans and democrats regarding economic issues is, that democrats are bragging about wasting money, while republicans are being hypocrites while doing it.
I also hate it, when people start to talk about "pragmatism in politics", because its a nice way to paraphrase something completely different. Pragmatism in politics means, that politicians abandon all promises, ideals, common sense, expertise or long-term thinking in favour of person gain. But who could possibly be against pragmatism? Whoever rebranded this must be a fecking genius. Well done.
The economy is doing fine despite politicians not because of them. American people are (on average) incredible creative and innovative. Thats why the standard of living is so high. Did Obama push for any meaningful economic reforms? Of course not. A transparent, open market isnt in the interest of politicians. The only difference between republicans and democrats regarding economic issues is, that democrats are bragging about wasting money, while republicans are being hypocrites while doing it.
Citizens United - which states that corporations can give unlimited, unregulated campaign contributions to Politicians is insane.
Pfizer, P&G,Nestle, Mars, Kraft and Kelloggs are the entities that really run America, the politicians have little power and the people have even less power than they do.
That's a massive difference between sending hundreds of thousands of troops vs simply patrolling small areas with drones.
Pragmatism is actually a reality - if you expend your political capital taking extremist positions which incense the opposition, then you're not likely to get their support in other areas where you need it.
The economy is doing quite well under Obama when you consider he inherited it in complete freefall under Bush, which incidentally is another issue that ate up a lot of his first two years in office.
Romney being elected would have resulted in economic chaos that would have made the market crash of '08 pale in comparison.
A bit over the top, but I do agree that financial contributions need to be reformed. But even if they are, it won't mean much if the Supreme Court overturns it, so it will take another Dem President to get a couple of non-conservative justices on board to fix that.
"patrolling small areas with drones"
Do you think that Democrats wouldnt have started the war in Afghanistan? Do you think that Romney would have started another war with ground troops?
Of course "pragmatism" is a reality, but it has nothing to do with extremist positions. Its
"patrolling small areas with drones"
Do you think that Democrats wouldnt have started the war in Afghanistan? Do you think that Romney would have started another war with ground troops?
Of course "pragmatism" is a reality, but it has nothing to do with extremist positions. Its
Well yes, Yemen is a fairly small area. What's so funny about that ?
I think Democrats would have started the war in Afghanistan, but not in Iraq, which in turn would've ended the Afghanistan war by 2005/06. That's a massive difference from the cumulative 21 years of Iraq and Afghanistan the US saw under Bush, which Obama inherited.
Fecking Kelloggs anyways.
because drones dont operate only im yemen, pakistan, afghanistan and iraq? Maybe because the USA has set up the infrastructure to cover all of north africa, parts of central africa, the middle east and all the way to kashmir? I think that drones are a useful tool in war. No reason to endanger soldiers, if new technologies make this obsolete. I just struggle to see how unlawful killings based on dubious evidence (without being at war with a country), is not an aggressive, interventionist act of foreign policy.
Now I also think that you are fairly naive to think that democrats would have pulled out of Afghanistan 8/9 years ago. At the very beginning of his presidency, Obama asked the military leadership to prepare 4 different strategies for the next years, so he could chose one. Three only slightly varied in the amount of additional troops and one was heavily advices against. Kind of telling.
Iraq is up for debate. Could have gone either way. That still doesnt convinces me that any hypothetical post-bush republican president would have done different foreign policy compared to Obama.
There are very few democratic countries that actually change their "hard-power" foreign policy, because of a change in government. Almost all big questions are exclusively supported by the majority of parties. The iraq war was supported by the majority of democrats.
Obama opposed the Iraq war (while still voting for the funding from 2004-2007) and definitely had a different view on many things when he became president. At least thats my impression after reading a couple of books about it. Even more shocking that this didnt translate into different policy.
Turning points of US foreign policy are not defined by elections, but by global events, economic issues, technological advancement, cultural shifts and a couple of other things.
Last edited:
Iraq war is over and Afghanistan is ending as well, so they're mainly in Yemen. But even if they weren't, who cares? It's not as if there is a ground invasion going on. Personally, I think they are fantastic. Much better than invading with troops.
right. Who gives a shit about killing people? They are not american, so they are not really that important. The world is already fairly overpopulated and nobody will miss a couple thousands arabs, persians or pashtuns. But you are right. If they benchmark is invading foreign countries on made up claims, Obama scaled down a little bit and did reasonably okay. Talking about shooting low.
That's war my friend. People do die.
The irony of all of this is that America has invaded 50 countries since World War II. Yet, the US themselves have been invaded 0 times.
Did the US need to invade Vietnam? No.
Did the US need to invade Cuba? No.
Did the US need to invade Afghanistan? No.
etc.
The USA has an extensive history of destabilising governments across the World. Create a problem, and then come in and fix the problem.
Did the US need to invade Vietnam? No.
Did the US need to invade Cuba? No.
Did the US need to invade Afghanistan? No.
etc.
The USA has an extensive history of destabilising governments across the World. Create a problem, and then come in and fix the problem.
Like they ever fix the problem.
Your point ?
your government is pretty fecked up. I guess thats his point. Eventually not even more than others; sadly you guys have the bazooka, while others just throw rocks. People could also realize that 90% of all wars dont solve any problems and are a waste of money. That astonishes me the most. The CBO estimated that the Iraq war will cost every American about 6300$ till the year 2017. Most independent sources talk about much more. So you end up somewhere between 10.000$-25.000$ for each citizen. bloody hell. Why the feck would any reasonable person support something which is so bad for themselves.The USA became a militaristic society. Nobody is able to question this madness anymore. Add afghanistan and all the other wars and the waste on military equipment and you get an even higher number. I´d be so mad if I´d be an American tax payer.
I didnt know that the USA is at war with at least 8 countries at the moment. Maybe your government should communicate that? Send them a memo or an email:
Do you want to have war with me?
( ) Yes
( ) No
( ) Maybe
( ) xoxoxoxoxoxo
I didnt know that the USA is at war with at least 8 countries at the moment. Maybe your government should communicate that? Send them a memo or an email:
Do you want to have war with me?
( ) Yes
( ) No
( ) Maybe
( ) xoxoxoxoxoxo
The Iraq War (the 2nd one) was obviously not a good idea. Afghanistan was completely necessary. Sadly, we don't live in a world where war is non-existent. Has nothing to the with the US or any other country - its just a byproduct of the human condition.
- Status