Jump to content


The Obama Legacy


Recommended Posts

 

 

I don't think he projects as a strong leader around the world. I am sure that a lot will disagree with this, but it is my opinion.

I'll tell you who disagrees with that - most of the free world. He's viewed as a strong leader by all of our allies.

 

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/06/24/7-charts-on-how-the-world-views-president-obama/

 

That is why it is called my opinion. Sorry I don't see him as some great President.

 

Your opinion on Obama's goodness/badness isn't debatable. You don't think he's a good president, and that's fine.

 

I'm just showing that, around the world, that opinion isn't shared. He's viewed well around the world, mostly better than he is at home.

Link to comment

 

 

 

I don't think he projects as a strong leader around the world. I am sure that a lot will disagree with this, but it is my opinion.

I'll tell you who disagrees with that - most of the free world. He's viewed as a strong leader by all of our allies.

 

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/06/24/7-charts-on-how-the-world-views-president-obama/

 

That is why it is called my opinion. Sorry I don't see him as some great President.

 

Your opinion on Obama's goodness/badness isn't debatable. You don't think he's a good president, and that's fine.

 

I'm just showing that, around the world, that opinion isn't shared. He's viewed well around the world, mostly better than he is at home.

 

Knappic I would expect nothing less than that fromyou. I don't think GWB or Obama were/are strong leaders. Even though I don't agree with a lot of what Bill Clinton stood/stands for he projects as a strong leader to me. The one poll shown asks if you trust the leader to do the right thing. I would expect any US President to do the right thing. Personally I would take Merkel.

Link to comment

Knappic I would expect nothing less than that fromyou. I don't think GWB or Obama were/are strong leaders.

 

 

 

Okay, but your first statement was that you don't think Obama projects as a strong leader around the world, which is different than saying that you personally don't think he actually is a strong leader.

 

You can have the opinion that he doesn't project as a strong leader. But you're wrong. The data shows that around the world, people think of him as a strong leader. You're still allowed to have that opinion, but that's not a defense against being incorrect.

Link to comment

 

Knappic I would expect nothing less than that fromyou. I don't think GWB or Obama were/are strong leaders.

 

 

 

Okay, but your first statement was that you don't think Obama projects as a strong leader around the world, which is different than saying that you personally don't think he actually is a strong leader.

 

You can have the opinion that he doesn't project as a strong leader. But you're wrong. The data shows that around the world, people think of him as a strong leader. You're still allowed to have that opinion, but that's not a defense against being incorrect.

 

 

Do you feel better now? I am wrong. I worded it poorly. Even though I said I don't think he project as a strong leader around the world, and that many others will disagree it was my opinion. Instead of looking up a poll I just stated my opinion. You disagree with my opinion and the data shows I am wrong. Ok?

Link to comment

 

 

I don't think he projects as a strong leader around the world. I am sure that a lot will disagree with this, but it is my opinion.

 

 

I'll tell you who disagrees with that - most of the free world. He's viewed as a strong leader by all of our allies.

 

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/06/24/7-charts-on-how-the-world-views-president-obama/

 

 

They just came out with another poll yesterday that shows how well he does compared to other world leaders and the presidential candidates.

 

Confidence-in-Leaders-and-Candidates-%E2

Link

 

No wonder he admires Putin so much.

Link to comment

 

 

 

 

Given the choice, I think the majority of Americans, if honest, given the choice of Obama, Clinton or Trump would pick Obama again. I am a Republican and I know I would

 

It absolutely amazes me to say this. But, I've been thinking the same thing. If I had had to vote for one of those three, I would probably vote for Obama.

 

I have said that around people in real life and they about flip out claiming we need someone knew. So...then, I ask, which of the two top candidates are bette? Usually they don't have an answer.

 

Yes, it is pretty bad when the guy you want to beat is still considered better than the 'solution'. This is the case of a bird in the hand is better than 2 in the bush or it is better to have the 'enemy/dictator' that you know vs the one you don't know. With that said - I can see a few things that Trump could accomplished if his inner child was channeled by some mature adults around him. But I have strong reservations that his inner child could ever be channeled. Hillary is corruption central. Nothing redeeming there.

I'm leaning Gary Johnson - even though he is 'out there' on some things but I think he and Weld would act more wisely and adult like than either Trump or Hillary.

 

I would say it's more like....."Be careful what you wish for".

 

 

Gary Johnson all the way for me at this point.

Link to comment

 

 

 

 

 

Given the choice, I think the majority of Americans, if honest, given the choice of Obama, Clinton or Trump would pick Obama again. I am a Republican and I know I would

 

It absolutely amazes me to say this. But, I've been thinking the same thing. If I had had to vote for one of those three, I would probably vote for Obama.

 

I have said that around people in real life and they about flip out claiming we need someone knew. So...then, I ask, which of the two top candidates are bette? Usually they don't have an answer.

 

Yes, it is pretty bad when the guy you want to beat is still considered better than the 'solution'. This is the case of a bird in the hand is better than 2 in the bush or it is better to have the 'enemy/dictator' that you know vs the one you don't know. With that said - I can see a few things that Trump could accomplished if his inner child was channeled by some mature adults around him. But I have strong reservations that his inner child could ever be channeled. Hillary is corruption central. Nothing redeeming there.

I'm leaning Gary Johnson - even though he is 'out there' on some things but I think he and Weld would act more wisely and adult like than either Trump or Hillary.

 

I would say it's more like....."Be careful what you wish for".

 

 

Gary Johnson all the way for me at this point.

 

So true - The repubs wanted a non-establishment and look what they get and The Dems wanted a coronation - they get corruption and now protests.

Link to comment

I think Presidents in general get way too much credit or blame for the economy. The economic collapse under Bush had much more to do with 9-11, the housing bubble and by being seen through the distorted lens of following some years that were perceived to be good economically but actually were just laying a house of cards foundation. Congress appropriates the funds and spends the money and has more impact on the economy than Presidents do but even they have relatively little impact compared to greater market forces. Presidents and congress simply win or lose based on circumstances largely out of their control.

 

Likewise the Obama economy suffered in much the same way as the Bush economy with the addition of a belligerent congress to work with. It started out poorly, gained a little momentum and has basically treaded water. All in all probably as well as could be expected with all the turmoil in the Mideast, international markets, austerity measures in other countries etc.

 

The Clinton and Reagan years are typically looked upon as being economically good but even those "good" years were not necessarily the result of who was President. About the most credit you can give them for the economy is that people generally were more confident and felt better about things and that positive outlook helped the economy.

 

As far as Obama's legacy, I think he will be looked back upon as a pretty average President. The economy probably did just about as well as it could've. I think Obamacare will be proven to be a failure but you gotta give him at least a little bit of credit for attempting something to fix our failing healthcare system, even if they did focus on the wrong problem of covering more people rather than controlling out of control costs. As far as dealing with terrorism and international issues he didn't totally screw the pooch and that is probably a slight win considering what all has transpired these last 8 years. Not sure anyone else would've done much better even if I think he should've some things better. But, I think history will see him most favorably for advances on equal right issues for LGBT people. Change has come pretty quick in those areas and may not be perceived favorably by many right now but years down the road I think that will be looked at as an area where he helped make advancements. I'd give him a C+.

 

My Summary

Whoever is next D- (unless it isn't Hillary or Trump)

Obama C+

GW Bush C+

Clinton C+

GH Bush B-

Reagan B+

Carter D-

 

I'm sure most will take issue with some of these but I think they're pretty fair based on what each one inherited, the factors that were out of their control, and what they had to deal with while in office.

Link to comment
I think Obamacare will be proven to be a failure but you gotta give him at least a little bit of credit for attempting something to fix our failing healthcare system, even if they did focus on the wrong problem of covering more people rather than controlling out of control costs.

 

 

This is probably a pretty good, pretty succinct analysis of Obamacare. It was well-intentioned but poorly executed, and failed to address the main problem in American healthcare, skyrocketing costs. Without major overhauls it'll eventually fail, or become an anchor on the economy.

 

Maybe the best thing to come from Obamacare is that it kicked the door open on the discussion of universal healthcare. Future attempts can build on this process, hopefully not repeat the mistakes, and make healthcare better in this country.

 

My Summary

Whoever is next D- (unless it isn't Hillary or Trump)

Obama C+

GW Bush C+

Clinton C+

GH Bush B-

Reagan B+

Carter D-

 

 

My grades:

 

Obama B : Good president facing historic opposition/uncooperation. Broke open healthcare, fixed the economy, was a steady hand & voice after inheriting a rough situation. Ended two costly wars. While I blame Congress for failing to work with Obama on literally anything, and for being the worst do-nothing Congress of the past 50 years, Obama was unable to force a compromise. Fair or unfair, that's part of his job.

 

GW Bush D- : 9/11 happened eight months into his term, which scrambled the egg on whatever his intentions with his presidency were. He was gifted unprecedented goodwill worldwide, and squandered it on wasteful and unnecessary foreign wars, costing trillions of unnecessary dollars, fomenting hatred & resentment among people who could have been our allies but are now predisposed toward being our enemies, and he and his cronies used the tragedy of 9/11 to ram the Patriot Act, one of the most invasive and rights-trampling pieces of legislation in history, down our throats. In general, after 9/11, he cocked up everything. The economy was a disaster when he left office, foreign relations were a disaster, we had troops everywhere costing money we didn't have, his cronies in the oil industry were reaping record profits, and the country's trust in leadership was at an all-time low. The only reason he doesn't get an F is that 9/11 wasn't his fault, and sent the country into a tailspin.

 

Clinton C : People look back fondly on the Clinton presidency because it was a time of prosperity, with a robust economy and a general feeling of goodness. That's fine, but Clinton had next to nothing to do with that. My view of Clinton is "Slick Willie," the political insider who coasted along taking credit for an economy and peace that he basically had nothing to do with. On his watch, the Middle East festered and produced some of the hardest-line Islamic Radicals the world has seen, leading to an environment where 9/11 could happen. Maybe it's been too long, but I can't think of a single thing Clinton did in office to make the country better (feel free to correct me). His kind of crony politics are exactly what I dislike about politicians.

 

GHW Bush B : I give Bush I a solid B. The country was in a good place after the Reagan Era, and he was going to be a caretaker president keeping the good times rolling. When called upon to take action in Kuwait, Bush created a coalition of allies to assist in the ouster of the Iraqi invaders. He wisely (unlike his son) left Saddam in office so as not to create a power vacuum, something we've since come to realize would have been (and later, was) a huge mistake. Bush's biggest drawback, politically, is that he was a bit of a Milquetoast, which allowed Slick Willie to worm his way into office with charisma and some nifty sax riffs.

 

Reagan A : This may be a bit of personal bias, but I grew up relatively poor in the 1970s, and my family was able to climb out of that during the Reagan Era. For us, it was a time of personal prosperity. The country had some pretty grim times, including bad racial tension/riots, but by far the most lasting impression of Reagan that I have is that he ended the Cold War without a shot being fired. Yes, it was somewhat ruinous to the economy, and yes, it lined the pockets of defense contractors (remember the $200 hammer?), but it was a great way to end a long-standing conflict, and it brought about the fall of the Berlin Wall and much greater freedoms for a lot of Europe.

 

Carter C- : Meh. He was a reasonably weak president. He's done far more for America as an ambassador after his presidency than any other president, but while in office... he didn't do much. Interesting that he was, like GHWBush, a Milquetoast, and he was supplanted by a charismatic two-term president.

Link to comment

Interesting that he was, like GHWBush, a Milquetoast,

 

See....that's why I like reading your posts. I learn something new. A good way to start the day.

 

milquetoast
[milk-tohst]
Spell Syllables
noun, ( sometimes initial capital letter)
1.
a very timid, unassertive, spineless person, especially one who iseasily dominated or intimidated:
a milquetoast who's afraid to ask for a raise.
Link to comment

 

I was 10 when Clinton was elected and I could not stand how fake he seemed whenever he talked. But I don't remember anything about Bush during the debates, heh.

Oh man....if I never hear him say again (with a raspy soft voice)...."I feel your pain", I will be a happier man.

 

I did not have sex* with that woman

 

*Sex is defined as intercourse with a man's penis and a woman's vagina at the same time and local. All other forms of relations between a man and a woman, or a consenting goat or other living organism including plants, including but not restricted to: fellatio, cunclinius, insertion of penis into any other body orafice, or the insertion of any other inatimate object, especially cigars, into any body orafice, including the vagina shall not be defined as sex.

Link to comment

 

I think Presidents in general get way too much credit or blame for the economy. The economic collapse under Bush had much more to do with 9-11, the housing bubble and by being seen through the distorted lens of following some years that were perceived to be good economically but actually were just laying a house of cards foundation. Congress appropriates the funds and spends the money and has more impact on the economy than Presidents do but even they have relatively little impact compared to greater market forces. Presidents and congress simply win or lose based on circumstances largely out of their control.

 

Likewise the Obama economy suffered in much the same way as the Bush economy with the addition of a belligerent congress to work with. It started out poorly, gained a little momentum and has basically treaded water. All in all probably as well as could be expected with all the turmoil in the Mideast, international markets, austerity measures in other countries etc.

 

The Clinton and Reagan years are typically looked upon as being economically good but even those "good" years were not necessarily the result of who was President. About the most credit you can give them for the economy is that people generally were more confident and felt better about things and that positive outlook helped the economy.

 

As far as Obama's legacy, I think he will be looked back upon as a pretty average President. The economy probably did just about as well as it could've. I think Obamacare will be proven to be a failure but you gotta give him at least a little bit of credit for attempting something to fix our failing healthcare system, even if they did focus on the wrong problem of covering more people rather than controlling out of control costs. As far as dealing with terrorism and international issues he didn't totally screw the pooch and that is probably a slight win considering what all has transpired these last 8 years. Not sure anyone else would've done much better even if I think he should've some things better. But, I think history will see him most favorably for advances on equal right issues for LGBT people. Change has come pretty quick in those areas and may not be perceived favorably by many right now but years down the road I think that will be looked at as an area where he helped make advancements. I'd give him a C+.

 

My Summary

Whoever is next D- (unless it isn't Hillary or Trump)

Obama C+

GW Bush C+

Clinton C+

GH Bush B-

Reagan B+

Carter D-

 

I'm sure most will take issue with some of these but I think they're pretty fair based on what each one inherited, the factors that were out of their control, and what they had to deal with while in office.

 

Interesting assessment. I am not quite as harsh of a grader I guess, but here are my rankings:

 

Carter: D-

Reagan: A

Bush 41: B-

Clinton: B+

Bush 43: B-

Obama: C-

 

As I've said before, I believe Bill Clinton is scum, but in terms of his job performance, I am giving him the second highest grade behind Reagan. Also, from my perspective, the primary job of the federal government is national security and putting in policies to keep our country safe, and since the world has had the wake-up call to terrorism on 9/11, Bush 43 gets a full grade higher than Obama. In 2 weeks time we have seen ISIS strike in Orlando, Turkey, and Bangladesh, and their movement is growing despite some claiming they have lost territory. They do not fear a US-led coalition to root out terrorism like we had in Bush's term, and they are emboldened and will continue to strike until we have a new leader of the free world that is ready to take them on.

  • Fire 1
Link to comment
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...