The Obama Legacy

[Danny Bateman]

Apparently I hit a nerve.

[NM11046]

Nah - you only got a 2 paragraph diatribe response. In order to qualify as hitting his nerve you have to strive for more than 3 paragraphs. (sadly it's not hard).

[Moiraine]

Nah - you only got a 2 paragraph diatribe response. In order to qualify as hitting his nerve you have to strive for more than 3 paragraphs. (sadly it's not hard).

His paragraphs or normal people paragraphs?

[BigRedBuster]

In a really weird masochistic sort of way, this is one of those moments I would like to meet a member of this board.

 

Wow.....

[ZRod]

 

 

 

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.

Absolutely delusional... You're going to ignore over 200 years of institutional racism and place the blame on the last 8 years? Did we forget about black sentiments after Katrina? How about after OJ? Rodney King? What about Koreans and black fighting each other during the LA riots? How about how we treated "Muslims", Indians, Mexicans, and any other brown man after 9/11? The Japanese and Germans during WWII? Irish Catholic immigrants and Asian immigrants around the 20th century. Do I even need to mention slavery? Or what about the one nobody wants to talk about. How we continue to treat the people who first called this land home. Native Americans.

You want to say that this country, which is infact a melting pot of many peoples from across the world living together, and has been called "The Grand Experiment" by one of its founding fathers (hint: we are actually a social experiment, of democracy and liberty!), has somehow been destabilized and damaged because one of its presidents was willing to acknowledge and bring to light its faults? Not for political gain, but for discourse and progress. That, somehow makes us more divided despite our 240 years of division? Give me a break...

You can make whatever excuses you want on this topic. Nobody is stating that racial tensions suddenly began under Obama, so you are grossly off topic in using this as rationale to deny the evidence that racial tensions have deepened under Obamas tenure, and that this will be a part of his legacy which is what this thread is about. And I have said repeatedly that Obama alone cannot be blamed for this result, just as Bush cannot be solely blamed for Iraq. But I do stand by my belief that Obama used race as a wedge issue to help him gain politically, and it worked for him in 2008 and 2012.

You're very mistaken if you think the sole reason I ran quickly through racial tension in this nation was to make some kind of excuse. Have you ever stopped to think that the tension has always been there, but one group was looking away and the other just kept their head down and didn't stand up or speak out? In what way did Obama use race as a political football? He simply talked about a real issue in this nation that many would rather ignore. Something we need to address and do our best to improve as a nation and as neighbors and friends. How did race help him in 2008? How did it help him in 2012? What proof do you have of these calims?

[BigRedBuster]

Don't put me on the side that believes he caused much of the racial tension in this country over the last 8 years.

 

However, you don't think his race helped him in his elections in 2008 and 2012?

 

Look at the increased black turnout and who they voted for.

[NM11046]

 

Nah - you only got a 2 paragraph diatribe response. In order to qualify as hitting his nerve you have to strive for more than 3 paragraphs. (sadly it's not hard).

His paragraphs or normal people paragraphs?

 

His. In normal people paragraphs, you'd have to get 6 or more.

[Moiraine]

Don't put me on the side that believes he caused much of the racial tension in this country over the last 8 years.

 

However, you don't think his race helped him in his elections in 2008 and 2012?

 

Look at the increased black turnout and who they voted for.

 

I'm guessing a decent number of non-Blacks voted against him for the same reason. But there were probably also many non-Blacks who wanted us to have our first Black president. Who knows which had more weight. (He was also an extremely charismatic, likeable candidate).

[Landlord]

Don't put me on the side that believes he caused much of the racial tension in this country over the last 8 years.

 

However, you don't think his race helped him in his elections in 2008 and 2012?

 

Look at the increased black turnout and who they voted for.

 

 

 

Which do you think there's more of - galvanized black voters, or the entire gamut of white supremacists, all the way to closet subconsciously racially biased southerners that don't think it's a problem but no way in hell would ever vote for a black President?

[BigRedBuster]

Well, you gave a wonderfully descriptive post that tells where your mind is on this.

 

There were defiantly white racists that voted against him. However, there were also large numbers of white democrats that came out to vote for him too.

 

I don't think the white vote changed much as a percentage of R vs D.

 

The black community was very motivated to come out and vote and that had a major impact.

[BigRedBuster]

Well, you gave a wonderfully descriptive post that tells where your mind is on this.

 

There were defiantly white racists that voted against him. However, there were also large numbers of white democrats that came out to vote for him too.

 

I don't think the white vote changed much as a percentage of R vs D.

 

The black community was very motivated to come out and vote and that had a major impact.

[TGHusker]

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/barbara-hollingsworth/harvards-dershowitz-obama-was-one-worst-foreign-policy-presidents

 

Harvard Prof Allan Dershowitz (self described liberal) says the following (Since the interview was on Fox, there will be some on HB who will discount it all together - )

 

Harvard Law Professor Emeritus Alan Dershowitz says that although he and many other liberal Democrats supported President Obama's domestic policies, Obama “will go down in history as one of the worst foreign policy presidents ever.”

“He will go down in history, President Obama, as one of the worst foreign policy presidents ever,” Dershowitz said during a Monday interview on Fox & Friends. “What he did to Syria, and what he was partly responsible for happening in Aleppo, creating a vacuum for Russia. …

he created a terrible conflict for people, many like me liberal Democrats who support his domestic policy, but think he was an appalling – appalling - president when it came to foreign policy“Look, I supported his domestic policy. I liked him on Supreme Court appointments. But he created a terrible conflict for people, many like me liberal Democrats who support his domestic policy, but think he was an appalling – appalling - president when it came to foreign policy. He hurt America so badly.”

Speaking of the resent UN resolution against Israel, he states quote:

Dershowitz was particularly upset with Obama for abstaining from a vote on a recent United Nations Security Council resolution condemning Israel for constructing settlements on land it has occupied since the 1967 Six-Day War.

In doing so, Dershowitz said, Obama “stabbed” the longtime U.S. ally “in the back”.

Obama “called me into the Oval Office before the election and he said to me: ‘Alan, I want your support. And I have to tell you, I will always have Israel’s back.’

“I didn’t realize what he meant is that he would have its back to stab them in the back. And he just stabbed them in the back," Dershowitz said.

“That’s not the way policy should be made, to get even in the lame duck period when there are no checks and balances, and you don’t have to worry about the next election. It’s the most undemocratic thing a president can do – to tie the hands of his successor during the lame duck period,” he continued.

“The president has deliberately tied the hands of his successor. It’s going to make it much harder for President Trump to bring back peace.”

[zoogs]

I heard something extremely similar today on the radio from Israel's ambassador to the U.S.

 

Somebody's going to have to explain to me what's so noble about the Israeli settlements and why the U.S. must continue singularly wielding our security council veto to spare them from what appears to be almost unanimous U.N. censure.

 

Are these settlements Israel's way of "bringing back the peace"?

[Moiraine]

I heard something extremely similar today on the radio from Israel's ambassador to the U.S.

 

Somebody's going to have to explain to me what's so noble about the Israeli settlements and why the U.S. must continue singularly wielding our security council veto to spare them from what appears to be almost unanimous U.N. censure.

 

Are these settlements Israel's way of "bringing back the peace"?

 

Cliff notes: Israel should be protected by the U.S. (I agree with this) and Israel can do no wrong because Palestinians are the bad guys (disagree with). Also Obama is evil now.

[BigRedBuster]

We need to keep supporting Israel but, I have never figured out why they should be allowed to build settlements in Palestine without us opposing it.

 

Our support should not be a blank check for them to do whatever they want.