The Obama Legacy

[BigRedBuster]

Nobody's vote is 100% defensible in this election. In their mind it may be. But, to the outside world, no matter who you voted for, your vote can be justifiably criticized.

 

BRI voted for the candidate that he believes supports the place in life he is in better than the other choice. There is nothing wrong with that. That doesn't mean everyone is going to understand that. It's no different than the fact that I can't understand why anyone would vote for Hillary either.

 

If anyone voted for either candidate in this election with the belief they were voting for someone who was awesome and without major faults....well.....you are extremely gullible and don't have your eyes open to reality.

 

Edit....this does not apply to my vote for which I voted for myself because I'm awesome and without fault.

[Fru]

Nobody's vote is 100% defensible in this election. In their mind it may be. But, to the outside world, no matter who you voted for, your vote can be justifiably criticized.

 

BRI voted for the candidate that he believes supports the place in life he is in better than the other choice. There is nothing wrong with that. That doesn't mean everyone is going to understand that. It's no different than the fact that I can't understand why anyone would vote for Hillary either.

 

If anyone voted for either candidate in this election with the belief they were voting for someone who was awesome and without major faults....well.....you are extremely gullible and don't have your eyes open to reality.

 

Edit....this does not apply to my vote for which I voted for myself because I'm awesome and without fault.

 

Agreed.

 

I was simply trying to challenge BRI on his thought processes and elicit constructive discourse.

 

I think most people held their nose as they cast their vote this year.

[knapplc]

Can we stop with the notion that a vote for Clinton was as bad as a vote for Trump? One is a bad candidate. The other is perhaps the worst candidate in the last century.

 

These are not the same. Bad does not equal bad.

[zoogs]

I don't care how my vote affects so and so down the street, it's personal for me as it should be

I don't know -- I think we should care about this. It is a great reason to look at how shocking were Trump's signals towards so many whole groups of people in this country, and realize that this must be stopped.

 

I hope you can understand how that's a lot different than the issue of federal police funding and equipment, and justices, where I think we can both agree that there's some fair range of argument from different perspectives. As well that this is not the case when it comes to Trump's rhetoric regarding the groups of people he vilifies.

 

I do not think this makes any Trump supporter a bigot. But from my perspective, it's hard to understand how any reason can overcome "this must be stopped". Because a vote for Trump necessarily says "this is OK, because at least it's not THAT." I mean, gosh, maybe if the Democratic status quo was "policemen are evil and the root of all our problems", but it wasn't -- and if it had been, that would have been roundly, thoroughly repudiated.

[BigRedBuster]

Can we stop with the notion that a vote for Clinton was as bad as a vote for Trump? One is a bad candidate. The other is perhaps the worst candidate in the last century.

 

These are not the same. Bad does not equal bad.

If this is pointed at me, I didn't say that.

[BIGREDIOWAN]

 

Can we stop with the notion that a vote for Clinton was as bad as a vote for Trump? One is a bad candidate. The other is perhaps the worst candidate in the last century.

 

These are not the same. Bad does not equal bad.

If this is pointed at me, I didn't say that.

 

I don't think it is, I think it's pointed at me, that's okay, I understand where he's coming from. knapp, I'm taking no offense to that either.

 

Trust me, I didn't much care that I felt like I had to vote for Trump. I was going to vote for Evan McMullin, but when the vice presidential candidate that's on your ballot is different than the one he's been running with it gave me a "WTF?!" moment in the voting booth and I hadn't really looked at any other candidate besides Hillary, Trump and McMullin. So I fell back on the main point for me personally being treatment of law enforcement by the current administration in my eyes. There's no doubt that in the public eye Hillary is a way more polished politician, but behind closed doors that women is pure evil from my perspective, she's the devil in my eyes.

 

I don't care for the things that Trump has said towards some folks. I'm a white middle class male though so I don't have some of the perspectives that other folks have of different color or creed. Just like some folks aren't cops so they have a hard time seeing where I'm coming from at times. That's why I said what I said, those things don't necessarily affect me. So I'm in the "it doesn't effect me" boat. Doesn't mean I wouldn't like to see him shut up and clean that up because I certainly would and if I ever had the chance to meet him I would say those very things to him if given the opportunity.

 

"Hey, thanks for the support, I appreciate that, but let me give you a piece of advice, if I may. It certainly doesn't help the situation when you say some of the things you say. As someone who voted for you I'm disappointed in those things and would appreciate you cleaning that up sir. It's not going to help us out any as law enforcement officers, when you vocalize support for us and you say some of those things while we're battling a perception that we don't treat folks equally. That's not really advantageous to the mission at hand Mr. President. You have an awesome responsibility sir, treat it accordingly."

[BIGREDIOWAN]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I'm not interested in discussing my justification for voting for Trump. The sky has been falling for some since he won the presidency and what I say there won't matter. That's okay, I voted for him, I had several reasons why. Trump has shown a huge amount of respect in his speeches towards law enforcement and has acknowledged that we are being attacked on several different levels. He's also taken the time to contact widows of fallen officer personally to extend his condolences. Something that would be considered abnormal in an Obama presidency. It's the facts and something that is important to me.

I'm not asking you to be defensive, to be clear. I haven't followed this discussion all the way back, and I'm just asking you to support an assertion you freely made: that Obama, while saying the right things, did the wrong ones regarding law enforcement, and that Trump was different in this particular regard.

 

Like, when you say "Trump has shown a huge amount of respect in his speeches towards LEO" -- as you have before -- this points to a difference in saying the right things. But you specifically emphasized that Obama also said the right things politically, and that words don't count, only actions.

 

So as far as actions go, it's abnormal for Obama to contact widows of fallen officers personally. It's normal for Trump to do this. Is this a fair summary of your stance? Are there any other major contributing factors, or actions you will expect from the new administration?

 

I'm very sorry if you see this as piling on. Only trying to understand your perspective more comprehensively.

 

Words are the only thing I have to go by with Trump at this point. He isn't the sitting President yet so what can he really do? He didn't get the largest police unions support for no reason. He takes time to speak with us at his events, take photos with us, speak about what we're dealing with while he was on the campaign trail. And yes, he's called some widows of falling police officers. Now, if he starts showing that he only used us as puppets in his show, then I'll most certainly speak out about that. I want action, not words..........increase federal funding for local law enforcement to have access to funds to help assist them with building community programs. Re-open the door to have access to equipment necessary to deal with the changing environment we operate in today, i.e. terrorist attacks, civil unrest, etc. appoint justices to the supreme court that will protect rights, but not make our jobs harder as officers.

 

Obama has said things during his speeches that we see are in support of us and then we'll hear a back handed comment that enrages us. Actions of things he's done to irritate us and make us wonder if he even supports us are things like sending white house staff to Michael Brown's funeral, appointing a lawyer and financial backer of a cop killer to a civil rights post, not speaking out for days, weeks, ever when numerous cops are killed in a few days, not inflame racial tensions between police and the community they serve with some of the words he's using in the discussion, see the Dallas Police Officer's Funeral as an example.

 

 

So some of the things Obama has done/hasn't done have offended you as a police officer?

 

Must be difficult for a politician to upset or offend you like that. Would you consider standing in solidarity with some of the people that Trump has openly mocked/offended? POW's, the disabled and women come to mind.

 

I get it, maybe more than you know and more than I'm willing to let you know. I don't expect anyone to feel sorry for me, not asking for that, just stating where I'm coming from is all.

 

 

I can appreciate where anyone is coming from, however I don't think you got the point of my post.

 

Not liking Obama for doing/not doing something that resulted in you being offended, and then you turn around and vote for the candidate that has employed exceedingly offensive rhetoric and is openly supported by Nazi's and the KKK, arguably two of the most offensive organizations on Earth. I have trouble reconciling how someone can come to that conclusion.

 

No, I got the point of your post, you aren't in my shoes, just like I'm not in yours. I understand the situation and I'm not here to justify my vote for Trump. Like I've said in several posts, I had my reasons for voting for him. This is a perfect example of why I said months ago Trump supporters can't come out and say they are Trump supporters. Because now we have to justify why we voted for him or supported him and now it's perceived we're bigots. I had my reasons and I chose my candidate just like everyone else did. I thought Hilary was a disgusting individual..............so we had two disgusting individuals to pick from..............so I chose the one who supports the police.............she doesn't and came across more of the same as Obama from my perspective. It's a personal thing for me, I don't care how my vote affects so and so down the street, it's personal for me as it should be. So and so down the street isn't going to care about how they vote for the president affects me and rightfully so. I'm not seeing why that's so difficult to understand at this point.

 

 

For the record, I didn't call you a bigot, nor was I implying that you were one. However, your candidate has the undying support of Neo Nazis and the KKK and that apparently didn't bother you enough to vote for someone else, which ties into the second bolded part where you say you don't care how your vote affects others. That's really the essence, in my opinion, of the Trump voter.

 

You can recognize that his policy proposals are unconstitutional. You can hear his disparaging remarks about POW's. You can watch him mock a disabled individual. But ultimately, you don't care. Either you don't care because "Hey, doesn't affect me" or that kind of behavior simply isn't alarming to you.

 

I know you didn't that's why I said "perceived" I don't want this to come across wrong, but I'm old enough to understand now that groups can outright support someone whether that person likes that or not. I understand that folks like the KKK and Neo Nazis probably didn't like having and African-American President and certainly wouldn't care to have a madam President either so of course they're going to come out a support Trump. Trump spoke out against that support from what I understand, but regardless these folks still support him. There's not much he can do about that, but I understand why that's a problem to some.

 

He also received support from the largest police union in the land, which isn't a racist entity. The same police union that Hillary refused to try and get support from due to her thoughts towards police and the demographic of folks she was trying to get to vote for her and what her team perceived as the best route to the presidency. Politics is a huge mind game and a bunch of manipulation as I'm sure you know. Trump openly used fear tactics to get the votes that he did and preyed upon those votes with a verbal barrage and didn't hold much back at times. Enough folks felt that way at that point in time that he was ultimately successful in winning the election. Hillary equally manipulated things by not going after police support, by putting mothers of police shooting "victims" on stage at her campaign and using those folks as a marketing tool to try and gain votes from folks, by not having uniformed officers in visible view at times during her larger rallies....something I read about awhile back when she initially won the democratic nomination, etc. I firmly believe had these national riots, groups like BLM, etc not happened and not pushed their rhetoric so hard to the point where half of the country was literally sick of listening to it, Trump doesn't win this election. This was the perfect storm of events to occur to cause Donald Trump to win the white house.

 

http://nypost.com/2015/10/02/secret-service-agents-hillary-is-a-nightmare-to-work-with/

 

http://dailycaller.com/2016/07/28/giuliani-hillary-clinton-doesnt-allow-uniformed-police-on-convention-floor-video/

[zoogs]

A little off topic, but I came across the Daily Caller recently in a very old email inbox of mine. Apparently at one point I actually signed up for this junk.

 

 

I feel pretty lucky for not having read these headlines through all these years. I imagine my view of the world would be quite different, if I had.

[BIGREDIOWAN]

A little off topic, but I came across the Daily Caller recently in a very old email inbox of mine. Apparently at one point I actually signed up for this junk.

 

 

I feel pretty lucky for not having read these headlines through all these years. I imagine my view of the world would be quite different, if I had.

To be fair the original article came up on fox news, not really a news source either and linked to the daily caller. This is part of the problem, what is a legit news source anymore and what isn't? Just depends on whether that news source falls in line with your beliefs anymore. Every link people post anymore is pure garbage to be honest. This is why I don't care to link anything anymore because that argument always comes up.

[zoogs]

I don't think it's that impossible to figure out what's garbage and what's merely partisan. Someone had a graphic posted up previously that wasn't comprehensive, but was a decent approximate that showed partisan tendencies on one axis and quality on the other. So for example, CNN leans left and Fox leans right, but neither extremely so and both don't offer especially high-quality coverage.

 

I'm not sure there is a clear answer, but I think when you consider a particular topic, to take stock of the 'for' and 'against' sides and see which has more merit. In many cases there's no real right or wrong answer, or it is pretty hard for a layperson to the field to figure out anyway. In others -- for example, voter ID -- I think it's clearer to see where each side is coming from, and make a relatively easy decision there.

 

The sources that most draw my ire are the ones that try to throw everything into confusion. The only way to push true garbage into the mainstream is to convince readers that everything is equally garbage. You can get a good sense of which sources these are, though.

 

The total democratization of information makes these confusing times, but our ability to seek out and find where the established consensus lies isn't all lost.

[HuskerNation1]

Obama's legacy? Perhaps it has been clearly described by other comments on this board but I have not read every single statement or opinion thereon. But:

 

Obama himself summed up one major consequence of his Presidency just in the last few days when he said "America is becoming a 'browner' nation" suggesting that with the mass influx of Mexicans and other latinos, the color tone of the skin has gotten darker. Not something to really hang one's hat on as far as major accomplishments of a positive nature. Mexicans and the vast majority of foreigners entering the United States over the last 230 years or so of its history have been quite positive contributors to our society. The problem is there are simply 15 or 20 million too many! We don't have room economically, socially, politically and culturally to absorb and assimilate into our unique American culture. Being American is different than being African American or Mexican American or even Irish American. We permit immigration because of NEED and not for any other reason. America is not a great big social 'experiment' or something to be tampered with in a reckless way

 

Historically America has seen substantial immigration (nearly 100% of which was done legally through the established naturalization procedures in an orderly and limited and controlled manner btw) of groups from various places around the world. In large numbers, problems almost always arose and social and political and cultural and even legal consequences followed. However, nearly all those who came in the past, did so for the very purpose of becoming Americans and to live the American dream. They did not come to live the "Mexican American" or the "Irish American" or the Chinese American dream. They came to BECOME Americans with all the rights, virtues, benefits and responsibilities and advantages thereof.

 

I trace the beginnings of the destabilization of American society and culture to the concoction of the terms "multiculturalism" and the deliberate attempts to seperate and divide Americans into racial and ethic groups and to pit them against one another for political purposes. To drive political wedges in between racial and ethic and cultural 'groups' is to sew the seeds of disintegration and destruction of American society and ultimately to tear us apart as 'one Nation'. We are the "United States of America" and that name means a great deal more than just a convenient name for our country. The Constitution was written carefully in order to create a bond or 'union' of the several states for the common defense and to ensure domestic tranquility.

 

In many ways, Obama's legacy has been to create fractures and division and to de-unify and disintegrate our culture. This is very dangerous to the health, welfare, safety and security of us all. Whether Obama intended this as his legacy (about half of our voting population believes so) or not, it is in fact a big part of whatever legacy he leaves to future Americans to wrestle with. Hopefully, the bonds that have kept this nation together will be repaired and restored soon. Lord knows we can't stand much more division and political hate between liberals and conservatives. If Californians vote to leave the union, I would say let them go. In fact, maybe Trump can simply sell California back to Mexico to fund the wall and then add a thousand or so miles if needed. LOL

 

Well said 84, especially the part in bold. He has sought to create divisions in this country for his own political gains, and hence we are now more divided than ever, and this was well before the 2016 election got started.

[HuskerNation1]

Can we stop with the notion that a vote for Clinton was as bad as a vote for Trump? One is a bad candidate. The other is perhaps the worst candidate in the last century.

 

These are not the same. Bad does not equal bad.

 

You may disagree with Trump's outlandish statements and I don't approve of many, but if you are suggesting he was the worst candidate in the last century, you are smoking something. One does not have to agree with the man or his policies to appreciate what he just pulled off....beating the deepest GOP field in history to win the nomination, and then beating the Clinton machine who had serious advantages with advertising and the ground game, and beating her in states no other Republican has won since Reagan.

 

Also, as Obama has shown, one can be personally likable (according to Obama's polls) but be out of his league in terms of leadership and how to get results. If Obama had delivered what the American people wanted, Trump would not have won so many Obama voters across the entire nation and especially in the Rust belt.

[Landlord]

 

Can we stop with the notion that a vote for Clinton was as bad as a vote for Trump? One is a bad candidate. The other is perhaps the worst candidate in the last century.

 

These are not the same. Bad does not equal bad.

 

You may disagree with Trump's outlandish statements and I don't approve of many, but if you are suggesting he was the worst candidate in the last century, you are smoking something. One does not have to agree with the man or his policies to appreciate what he just pulled off....beating the deepest GOP field in history to win the nomination, and then beating the Clinton machine who had serious advantages with advertising and the ground game, and beating her in states no other Republican has won since Reagan.

 

Also, as Obama has shown, one can be personally likable (according to Obama's polls) but be out of his league in terms of leadership and how to get results. If Obama had delivered what the American people wanted, Trump would not have won so many Obama voters across the entire nation and especially in the Rust belt.

 

 

 

 

Obama was actually qualified and had experience relevant to the job of the Presidency and as for the bolded, that has nothing to do with his quality as a candidate.

[HuskerNation1]

 

 

Can we stop with the notion that a vote for Clinton was as bad as a vote for Trump? One is a bad candidate. The other is perhaps the worst candidate in the last century.

 

These are not the same. Bad does not equal bad.

 

You may disagree with Trump's outlandish statements and I don't approve of many, but if you are suggesting he was the worst candidate in the last century, you are smoking something. One does not have to agree with the man or his policies to appreciate what he just pulled off....beating the deepest GOP field in history to win the nomination, and then beating the Clinton machine who had serious advantages with advertising and the ground game, and beating her in states no other Republican has won since Reagan.

 

Also, as Obama has shown, one can be personally likable (according to Obama's polls) but be out of his league in terms of leadership and how to get results. If Obama had delivered what the American people wanted, Trump would not have won so many Obama voters across the entire nation and especially in the Rust belt.

 

 

 

 

Obama was actually qualified and had experience relevant to the job of the Presidency and as for the bolded, that has nothing to do with his quality as a candidate.

 

 

We will have to agree to disagree on whether Obama had ample executive experience to become POTUS. As for your label of Trump being the "worst candidate" in the last century, coming up with an approach to go completely against the grain and win not only the most competitive primary in GOP history but also the Presidency is a sign of a good candidate.

 

I never liked Bill Clinton personally but have said repeatedly that he was a great candidate and campaigner and had a way of connecting with voters than many others lacked (like John Kerry, John McCain, Romney, etc..). Just because you despise Trump does not mean he was a terrible candidate. He just pulled off what millions (including myself for much of the first half of 2016) said was impossible.

[Enhance]

 

Obama's legacy? Perhaps it has been clearly described by other comments on this board but I have not read every single statement or opinion thereon. But:

 

Obama himself summed up one major consequence of his Presidency just in the last few days when he said "America is becoming a 'browner' nation" suggesting that with the mass influx of Mexicans and other latinos, the color tone of the skin has gotten darker. Not something to really hang one's hat on as far as major accomplishments of a positive nature. Mexicans and the vast majority of foreigners entering the United States over the last 230 years or so of its history have been quite positive contributors to our society. The problem is there are simply 15 or 20 million too many! We don't have room economically, socially, politically and culturally to absorb and assimilate into our unique American culture. Being American is different than being African American or Mexican American or even Irish American. We permit immigration because of NEED and not for any other reason. America is not a great big social 'experiment' or something to be tampered with in a reckless way

 

Historically America has seen substantial immigration (nearly 100% of which was done legally through the established naturalization procedures in an orderly and limited and controlled manner btw) of groups from various places around the world. In large numbers, problems almost always arose and social and political and cultural and even legal consequences followed. However, nearly all those who came in the past, did so for the very purpose of becoming Americans and to live the American dream. They did not come to live the "Mexican American" or the "Irish American" or the Chinese American dream. They came to BECOME Americans with all the rights, virtues, benefits and responsibilities and advantages thereof.

 

I trace the beginnings of the destabilization of American society and culture to the concoction of the terms "multiculturalism" and the deliberate attempts to seperate and divide Americans into racial and ethic groups and to pit them against one another for political purposes. To drive political wedges in between racial and ethic and cultural 'groups' is to sew the seeds of disintegration and destruction of American society and ultimately to tear us apart as 'one Nation'. We are the "United States of America" and that name means a great deal more than just a convenient name for our country. The Constitution was written carefully in order to create a bond or 'union' of the several states for the common defense and to ensure domestic tranquility.

 

In many ways, Obama's legacy has been to create fractures and division and to de-unify and disintegrate our culture. This is very dangerous to the health, welfare, safety and security of us all. Whether Obama intended this as his legacy (about half of our voting population believes so) or not, it is in fact a big part of whatever legacy he leaves to future Americans to wrestle with. Hopefully, the bonds that have kept this nation together will be repaired and restored soon. Lord knows we can't stand much more division and political hate between liberals and conservatives. If Californians vote to leave the union, I would say let them go. In fact, maybe Trump can simply sell California back to Mexico to fund the wall and then add a thousand or so miles if needed. LOL

 

Well said 84, especially the part in bold. He has sought to create divisions in this country for his own political gains, and hence we are now more divided than ever, and this was well before the 2016 election got started.

Just so we're all on the same page, you place the blame of a divided nation solely at Obama's feet while disregarding (or intentionally ignoring) the significant failures and childish behaviors of a Republican controlled House since 2011?

 

I'm not a Democrat or a staunch Obama supporter, but that's complete and total bullsh*t.