|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On February 23 2016 03:59 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On February 23 2016 03:56 xDaunt wrote:On February 23 2016 03:52 Plansix wrote:
By what metric? The second Bush was "stronger" by leading us a 5 trillion dollar war based by bad intelligence? Of being able to pass his agenda with his party in control of both houses of congress? By failing to respond to a natural disaster on US soil and letting an entire city rot?
The only way W. Bush is a strong leader is if we change the metric to "most money spent on the military to blow up other countries." All of those presidents got shit done (regardless of whether you like what they did). All of them demonstrated an ability to work with the other side to pass grand legislation. All of them demonstrated an ability to work foreign relationships to accomplish real things on the global stage. Obama can't hold a candle to any of them on any of these fronts. That isn't really Obama's fault though. The Republican position on pretty much any topic is not functional on the international stage, be it climate change, working with Russia or Iran or Cuba.
Lets not forget that they are very angry about Syria, yet voted against Obama using airstrikes prior to the rise of ISIS. But somehow its his fault and he should have gotten involved sooner.
|
On February 23 2016 03:59 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On February 23 2016 03:56 xDaunt wrote:On February 23 2016 03:52 Plansix wrote:
By what metric? The second Bush was "stronger" by leading us a 5 trillion dollar war based by bad intelligence? Of being able to pass his agenda with his party in control of both houses of congress? By failing to respond to a natural disaster on US soil and letting an entire city rot?
The only way W. Bush is a strong leader is if we change the metric to "most money spent on the military to blow up other countries." All of those presidents got shit done (regardless of whether you like what they did). All of them demonstrated an ability to work with the other side to pass grand legislation. All of them demonstrated an ability to work foreign relationships to accomplish real things on the global stage. Obama can't hold a candle to any of them on any of these fronts. That isn't really Obama's fault though. The Republican position on pretty much any topic is not functional on the international stage, be it climate change, working with Russia or Iran or Cuba.
Blaming the republicans is a total copout. All Obama had to do was invite a republican to co-author an initiative to split the party and get it passed. However, Obama refused to do this. He's too arrogant and too much of an ideologue. He poisoned the process from the outset by announcing to the republican legislators that "he won," ergo he was not going to compromise. That's on him.
|
On February 23 2016 03:58 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On February 23 2016 03:53 Jockmcplop wrote:On February 23 2016 03:52 Plansix wrote:
By what metric? The second Bush was "stronger" by leading us a 5 trillion dollar war based by bad intelligence? Of being able to pass his agenda with his party in control of both houses of congress? By failing to respond to a natural disaster on US soil and letting an entire city rot?
The only way W. Bush is a strong leader is if we change the metric to "most money spent on the military to blow up other countries." I was gonna say something similar. Losing two wars simultaneously is no measure of strength by my mind. Apparently the sign of a strong leader is to go to war on two fronts and then cut taxes for the most wealthy people in the US. Because that is what great leaders do, things that make their people happy. And by people, I mean rich people. Edit: Let not even talk about the damage Bush did on the global stage. My god, the nightmare he created and the joke we were when he was in office.
You can make an argument that one of the wars was superfluous (I would disagree), but the country was attacked - to say he created a nightmare seems to me to miss the thing entirely.
|
On February 23 2016 03:58 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On February 23 2016 03:55 Deathstar wrote:On February 23 2016 03:38 Biff The Understudy wrote:On February 23 2016 03:27 Deathstar wrote:
Maybe a strong leader is just what we need to restore our democracy. If anything, Obama has been a very strong leader. He has put up reforms that were needed for decades against a hateful, extremist and unbelievably determined opposition, such as the Obamacare, which is a major, major achievement. He has put up a financial reform that we in Europe could only dream of. But of course, in modern politics saying you will "carpet bomb" people is synonym with "strong leadership". Macho bullshit is seen as "strong" while reasonable determination, rational behaviour, patience and wisdom is seen as weak stuff. It's better to boast about guns and tough shit like building walls and deporting millions of people if you want Joe Redneck to vote for you than provide, for example, a healthcare for every citizen. Who cares about healthcare when you can carpet bomb the shit out of the brown dudes and kick out those dirty mexicans. Someone who spend his days insulting anyone, who says one sexist remark after a racist insult, who is so ridiculously megalomaniac and dishonest as Trump is not "strong". I think Krugman is really right when he says we don't have a rational argument anymore. That's a very serious problem, the hysterization of politics and the fact that a major party has become so uninterested with what's actually going on and relies so much on fears, macho instinct and populist nonsenses. Obamacare is currently a mess right now because it lost it's purpose. Without a public option, which died thanks to moderate Democrats, Obamacare cannot achieve it's stated goals. Costs are still too high and unaffordable to millions of Americans, quality of care is comparable to pre-Obamacare, the program needs federal subsidies to stay afloat which will cost us trillions into this decade, hasn't done anything to curtail the problem of underinsurance, and so now we have a bunch of people with pre-existing conditions entering the market while the healthy population gets nothing due to high deductibles except a bigger bill. Obamacare is an amazing success. But then again, you would have to look at numbers. Millions of previously uncovered americans now have an affordable healthcare, and the price for the public is much less than it was. But I repeat myself, I don't think conservative give a fuck about facts.
You're the one talking about "amazing" "amazing". 6 million more got insured in return for 12 million who can't afford healthcare are getting hit with penalties now, the tens of millions with health insurance before have high deductible more expensive insurance, and we're still dealing with expensive healthcare costs which has not been addressed.
There's literally no reason to be partisan when you're just a frenchman. Obamacare has stepped into a middle territory that creates a lose-lose situation for millions of Americans.
|
On February 23 2016 04:02 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On February 23 2016 03:59 Nyxisto wrote:On February 23 2016 03:56 xDaunt wrote:On February 23 2016 03:52 Plansix wrote:
By what metric? The second Bush was "stronger" by leading us a 5 trillion dollar war based by bad intelligence? Of being able to pass his agenda with his party in control of both houses of congress? By failing to respond to a natural disaster on US soil and letting an entire city rot?
The only way W. Bush is a strong leader is if we change the metric to "most money spent on the military to blow up other countries." All of those presidents got shit done (regardless of whether you like what they did). All of them demonstrated an ability to work with the other side to pass grand legislation. All of them demonstrated an ability to work foreign relationships to accomplish real things on the global stage. Obama can't hold a candle to any of them on any of these fronts. That isn't really Obama's fault though. The Republican position on pretty much any topic is not functional on the international stage, be it climate change, working with Russia or Iran or Cuba. Blaming the republicans is a total copout. All Obama had to do was invite a republican to co-author an initiative to split the party and get it passed. However, Obama refused to do this. He's too arrogant and too much of an ideologue. He poisoned the process from the outset by announcing to the republican legislators that "he won," ergo he was not going to compromise. That's on him.
So you think he could have convinced enough Republicans to get the stuff through while keeping the positions intact so that they can work on the international stage? Is that realistic?
|
On February 23 2016 03:57 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On February 23 2016 03:56 xDaunt wrote:On February 23 2016 03:52 Plansix wrote:
By what metric? The second Bush was "stronger" by leading us a 5 trillion dollar war based by bad intelligence? Of being able to pass his agenda with his party in control of both houses of congress? By failing to respond to a natural disaster on US soil and letting an entire city rot?
The only way W. Bush is a strong leader is if we change the metric to "most money spent on the military to blow up other countries." All of those presidents got shit done (regardless of whether you like what they did). All of them demonstrated an ability to work with the other side to pass grand legislation. All of them demonstrated an ability to work foreign relationships to accomplish real things on the global stage. Obama can't hold a candle to any of them on any of these fronts. Which things did Bush accomplish on the global stage? A massive financial crisis and some failed attempts at war. Get that guy a medal for strength. Bush couldn't even name or spell half the players on the global stage lol
Posts like these are why participating in this thread can be such a chore. And it's so unnecessary. Put the partisan bullshit aside. I've offered an objective measure for gauging leadership: passing and effecting policies both globally and domestically -- REGARDLESS OF WHETHER THE POLICIES ARE "GOOD." And in response, I get garbage responses like this one. C'mon, I know you people can be better than this.
|
On February 23 2016 04:02 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On February 23 2016 03:59 Nyxisto wrote:On February 23 2016 03:56 xDaunt wrote:On February 23 2016 03:52 Plansix wrote:
By what metric? The second Bush was "stronger" by leading us a 5 trillion dollar war based by bad intelligence? Of being able to pass his agenda with his party in control of both houses of congress? By failing to respond to a natural disaster on US soil and letting an entire city rot?
The only way W. Bush is a strong leader is if we change the metric to "most money spent on the military to blow up other countries." All of those presidents got shit done (regardless of whether you like what they did). All of them demonstrated an ability to work with the other side to pass grand legislation. All of them demonstrated an ability to work foreign relationships to accomplish real things on the global stage. Obama can't hold a candle to any of them on any of these fronts. That isn't really Obama's fault though. The Republican position on pretty much any topic is not functional on the international stage, be it climate change, working with Russia or Iran or Cuba. Blaming the republicans is a total copout. All Obama had to do was invite a republican to co-author an initiative to split the party and get it passed. However, Obama refused to do this. He's too arrogant and too much of an ideologue. He poisoned the process from the outset by announcing to the republican legislators that "he won," ergo he was not going to compromise. That's on him.
Now you are living in fantasy land. In what reality would a single Republican co-authoring a bill with him split the party? It is hard to compromise when they keep trying to defund PP or the ACA in every bill they pass.
|
On February 23 2016 04:07 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On February 23 2016 03:57 Jockmcplop wrote:On February 23 2016 03:56 xDaunt wrote:On February 23 2016 03:52 Plansix wrote:
By what metric? The second Bush was "stronger" by leading us a 5 trillion dollar war based by bad intelligence? Of being able to pass his agenda with his party in control of both houses of congress? By failing to respond to a natural disaster on US soil and letting an entire city rot?
The only way W. Bush is a strong leader is if we change the metric to "most money spent on the military to blow up other countries." All of those presidents got shit done (regardless of whether you like what they did). All of them demonstrated an ability to work with the other side to pass grand legislation. All of them demonstrated an ability to work foreign relationships to accomplish real things on the global stage. Obama can't hold a candle to any of them on any of these fronts. Which things did Bush accomplish on the global stage? A massive financial crisis and some failed attempts at war. Get that guy a medal for strength. Bush couldn't even name or spell half the players on the global stage lol Posts like these are why participating in this thread can be such a chore. And it's so unnecessary. Put the partisan bullshit aside. I've offered an objective measure for gauging leadership: passing and effecting policies both globally and domestically -- REGARDLESS OF WHETHER THE POLICIES ARE "GOOD." And in response, I get garbage responses like this one. C'mon, I know you people can be better than this.
It seems like people are saying that Obama is a strong leader because he accomplished things to the extent you would expect, and when he couldn't accomplish something, it's the fault of Republicans; whereas the things Bush accomplished were things they disagree with, so it doesn't count as strength.
|
United States43898 Posts
On February 23 2016 04:04 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On February 23 2016 03:58 Plansix wrote:On February 23 2016 03:53 Jockmcplop wrote:On February 23 2016 03:52 Plansix wrote:
By what metric? The second Bush was "stronger" by leading us a 5 trillion dollar war based by bad intelligence? Of being able to pass his agenda with his party in control of both houses of congress? By failing to respond to a natural disaster on US soil and letting an entire city rot?
The only way W. Bush is a strong leader is if we change the metric to "most money spent on the military to blow up other countries." I was gonna say something similar. Losing two wars simultaneously is no measure of strength by my mind. Apparently the sign of a strong leader is to go to war on two fronts and then cut taxes for the most wealthy people in the US. Because that is what great leaders do, things that make their people happy. And by people, I mean rich people. Edit: Let not even talk about the damage Bush did on the global stage. My god, the nightmare he created and the joke we were when he was in office. You can make an argument that one of the wars was superfluous (I would disagree), but the country was attacked - to say he created a nightmare seems to me to miss the thing entirely.
The country was attacked by a group of Saudis, you do know Saddam wasn't behind it, right?
|
On February 23 2016 04:10 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On February 23 2016 04:07 xDaunt wrote:On February 23 2016 03:57 Jockmcplop wrote:On February 23 2016 03:56 xDaunt wrote:On February 23 2016 03:52 Plansix wrote:
By what metric? The second Bush was "stronger" by leading us a 5 trillion dollar war based by bad intelligence? Of being able to pass his agenda with his party in control of both houses of congress? By failing to respond to a natural disaster on US soil and letting an entire city rot?
The only way W. Bush is a strong leader is if we change the metric to "most money spent on the military to blow up other countries." All of those presidents got shit done (regardless of whether you like what they did). All of them demonstrated an ability to work with the other side to pass grand legislation. All of them demonstrated an ability to work foreign relationships to accomplish real things on the global stage. Obama can't hold a candle to any of them on any of these fronts. Which things did Bush accomplish on the global stage? A massive financial crisis and some failed attempts at war. Get that guy a medal for strength. Bush couldn't even name or spell half the players on the global stage lol Posts like these are why participating in this thread can be such a chore. And it's so unnecessary. Put the partisan bullshit aside. I've offered an objective measure for gauging leadership: passing and effecting policies both globally and domestically -- REGARDLESS OF WHETHER THE POLICIES ARE "GOOD." And in response, I get garbage responses like this one. C'mon, I know you people can be better than this. It seems like people are saying that Obama is a strong leader because he accomplished things to the extent you would expect, and when he couldn't accomplish something, it's the fault of Republicans; whereas the things Bush accomplished were things they disagree with, so it doesn't count as strength.
This thread is jam packed with the intellectually dishonest.
|
On February 23 2016 04:07 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On February 23 2016 03:57 Jockmcplop wrote:On February 23 2016 03:56 xDaunt wrote:On February 23 2016 03:52 Plansix wrote:
By what metric? The second Bush was "stronger" by leading us a 5 trillion dollar war based by bad intelligence? Of being able to pass his agenda with his party in control of both houses of congress? By failing to respond to a natural disaster on US soil and letting an entire city rot?
The only way W. Bush is a strong leader is if we change the metric to "most money spent on the military to blow up other countries." All of those presidents got shit done (regardless of whether you like what they did). All of them demonstrated an ability to work with the other side to pass grand legislation. All of them demonstrated an ability to work foreign relationships to accomplish real things on the global stage. Obama can't hold a candle to any of them on any of these fronts. Which things did Bush accomplish on the global stage? A massive financial crisis and some failed attempts at war. Get that guy a medal for strength. Bush couldn't even name or spell half the players on the global stage lol Posts like these are why participating in this thread can be such a chore. And it's so unnecessary. Put the partisan bullshit aside. I've offered an objective measure for gauging leadership: passing and effecting policies both globally and domestically -- REGARDLESS OF WHETHER THE POLICIES ARE "GOOD." And in response, I get garbage responses like this one. C'mon, I know you people can be better than this.
So your measure of strength isn't a measure of strength at all, but a measure of how much a leader's views line up with those in charge of the agencies around him. For you 'strength' seems to be analagous for 'how easy your job is'. Bush had the easiest job, because his opinions were basically the same as those in the military, CIA, NSA etc. so his policies were easier to enact.
Despite all that he made the biggest and most disastrous mistakes in recent history.
And, if we're going to 'put aside the partisan bullshit' why did you have to come up with such a weird and roundabout way of defining strength? For some reason i get the feeling that it was deliberately targeted at Obama to serve your own partisan agenda.
|
On February 23 2016 04:13 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On February 23 2016 04:10 oBlade wrote:On February 23 2016 04:07 xDaunt wrote:On February 23 2016 03:57 Jockmcplop wrote:On February 23 2016 03:56 xDaunt wrote:On February 23 2016 03:52 Plansix wrote:
By what metric? The second Bush was "stronger" by leading us a 5 trillion dollar war based by bad intelligence? Of being able to pass his agenda with his party in control of both houses of congress? By failing to respond to a natural disaster on US soil and letting an entire city rot?
The only way W. Bush is a strong leader is if we change the metric to "most money spent on the military to blow up other countries." All of those presidents got shit done (regardless of whether you like what they did). All of them demonstrated an ability to work with the other side to pass grand legislation. All of them demonstrated an ability to work foreign relationships to accomplish real things on the global stage. Obama can't hold a candle to any of them on any of these fronts. Which things did Bush accomplish on the global stage? A massive financial crisis and some failed attempts at war. Get that guy a medal for strength. Bush couldn't even name or spell half the players on the global stage lol Posts like these are why participating in this thread can be such a chore. And it's so unnecessary. Put the partisan bullshit aside. I've offered an objective measure for gauging leadership: passing and effecting policies both globally and domestically -- REGARDLESS OF WHETHER THE POLICIES ARE "GOOD." And in response, I get garbage responses like this one. C'mon, I know you people can be better than this. It seems like people are saying that Obama is a strong leader because he accomplished things to the extent you would expect, and when he couldn't accomplish something, it's the fault of Republicans; whereas the things Bush accomplished were things they disagree with, so it doesn't count as strength. This thread is jam packed with the intellectually dishonest.
And that's why you fit in so nicely with your "objective measure of gauging leadership." 
|
I've been pretty happy with Obama outside of targeted drone strikes and such. Pretty sure history is going to view him favorably.
|
On February 23 2016 04:13 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On February 23 2016 04:10 oBlade wrote:On February 23 2016 04:07 xDaunt wrote:On February 23 2016 03:57 Jockmcplop wrote:On February 23 2016 03:56 xDaunt wrote:On February 23 2016 03:52 Plansix wrote:
By what metric? The second Bush was "stronger" by leading us a 5 trillion dollar war based by bad intelligence? Of being able to pass his agenda with his party in control of both houses of congress? By failing to respond to a natural disaster on US soil and letting an entire city rot?
The only way W. Bush is a strong leader is if we change the metric to "most money spent on the military to blow up other countries." All of those presidents got shit done (regardless of whether you like what they did). All of them demonstrated an ability to work with the other side to pass grand legislation. All of them demonstrated an ability to work foreign relationships to accomplish real things on the global stage. Obama can't hold a candle to any of them on any of these fronts. Which things did Bush accomplish on the global stage? A massive financial crisis and some failed attempts at war. Get that guy a medal for strength. Bush couldn't even name or spell half the players on the global stage lol Posts like these are why participating in this thread can be such a chore. And it's so unnecessary. Put the partisan bullshit aside. I've offered an objective measure for gauging leadership: passing and effecting policies both globally and domestically -- REGARDLESS OF WHETHER THE POLICIES ARE "GOOD." And in response, I get garbage responses like this one. C'mon, I know you people can be better than this. It seems like people are saying that Obama is a strong leader because he accomplished things to the extent you would expect, and when he couldn't accomplish something, it's the fault of Republicans; whereas the things Bush accomplished were things they disagree with, so it doesn't count as strength. This thread is jam packed with the intellectually dishonest.
You run to that excuse every time someone tries to apply reality to your political opinions. But yet you claim anyone who agrees with you is intellectually honest. Its almost like you can't deal with the banter.
|
On February 23 2016 04:13 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On February 23 2016 04:10 oBlade wrote:On February 23 2016 04:07 xDaunt wrote:On February 23 2016 03:57 Jockmcplop wrote:On February 23 2016 03:56 xDaunt wrote:On February 23 2016 03:52 Plansix wrote:
By what metric? The second Bush was "stronger" by leading us a 5 trillion dollar war based by bad intelligence? Of being able to pass his agenda with his party in control of both houses of congress? By failing to respond to a natural disaster on US soil and letting an entire city rot?
The only way W. Bush is a strong leader is if we change the metric to "most money spent on the military to blow up other countries." All of those presidents got shit done (regardless of whether you like what they did). All of them demonstrated an ability to work with the other side to pass grand legislation. All of them demonstrated an ability to work foreign relationships to accomplish real things on the global stage. Obama can't hold a candle to any of them on any of these fronts. Which things did Bush accomplish on the global stage? A massive financial crisis and some failed attempts at war. Get that guy a medal for strength. Bush couldn't even name or spell half the players on the global stage lol Posts like these are why participating in this thread can be such a chore. And it's so unnecessary. Put the partisan bullshit aside. I've offered an objective measure for gauging leadership: passing and effecting policies both globally and domestically -- REGARDLESS OF WHETHER THE POLICIES ARE "GOOD." And in response, I get garbage responses like this one. C'mon, I know you people can be better than this. It seems like people are saying that Obama is a strong leader because he accomplished things to the extent you would expect, and when he couldn't accomplish something, it's the fault of Republicans; whereas the things Bush accomplished were things they disagree with, so it doesn't count as strength. This thread is jam packed with the intellectually dishonest.
You will never fully separate an analysis of hypothetical "strength" without mentioning the results of applications of said strength. The results are going to bleed into the analysis. No way to parse this so that Bush2's grinding failures don't bleed into an analysis of his presidential skillz. His horrible record is going to come up.
|
On February 23 2016 04:02 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On February 23 2016 03:59 Nyxisto wrote:On February 23 2016 03:56 xDaunt wrote:On February 23 2016 03:52 Plansix wrote:
By what metric? The second Bush was "stronger" by leading us a 5 trillion dollar war based by bad intelligence? Of being able to pass his agenda with his party in control of both houses of congress? By failing to respond to a natural disaster on US soil and letting an entire city rot?
The only way W. Bush is a strong leader is if we change the metric to "most money spent on the military to blow up other countries." All of those presidents got shit done (regardless of whether you like what they did). All of them demonstrated an ability to work with the other side to pass grand legislation. All of them demonstrated an ability to work foreign relationships to accomplish real things on the global stage. Obama can't hold a candle to any of them on any of these fronts. That isn't really Obama's fault though. The Republican position on pretty much any topic is not functional on the international stage, be it climate change, working with Russia or Iran or Cuba. Blaming the republicans is a total copout. All Obama had to do was invite a republican to co-author an initiative to split the party and get it passed. However, Obama refused to do this. He's too arrogant and too much of an ideologue. He poisoned the process from the outset by announcing to the republican legislators that "he won," ergo he was not going to compromise. That's on him.
I can't help but notice you have chickened away from the Clinton vs Trump bet I suggested. Color me unsurprised :-)
With regards to the "Obama refused to reach across the aisle" narrative that you and the conservative media have been pushing throughout the years, it's hilariously dishonest and simply not based on facts. The fact is that it is Republicans in Congress (both in the Senate and in the House) who decided right after losing the 2008 election that their best bet to make electoral gains in the following elections would be to garner unanimous opposition to Obama among their ranks on everything they could afford to oppose him on. This is extremely well documented (and is even extensively analyzed in political scientists Thomas E. Mann and Norman J. Ornstein's It's Even Worse Than It Looks: How the American Constitutional System Collided With the New Politics of Extremism). Seriously, if you're unaware of how the GOP planned to oppose Obama on pretty much everything on day one, go read these two links.
The blame for the lack of bipartisanship under Obama falls on Obama only in the fantasy land of Fox News and Breitbart. In the real world, the Republicans in Congress decided to oppose him systematically in order to score electoral points, and have disguised their calculated opposition to him under the claim that he has refused to compromise (which is demonstrably false). Your entire post and view on this is their talking point -- you're either too informed on the topic to see it, or your ideological binders are keeping you (as usual) in the Republicans' parallel universe where everything is Obama's fault. You complaining about "intellectual dishonesty" is the epitome of irony.
|
On February 23 2016 04:18 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On February 23 2016 04:02 xDaunt wrote:On February 23 2016 03:59 Nyxisto wrote:On February 23 2016 03:56 xDaunt wrote:On February 23 2016 03:52 Plansix wrote:
By what metric? The second Bush was "stronger" by leading us a 5 trillion dollar war based by bad intelligence? Of being able to pass his agenda with his party in control of both houses of congress? By failing to respond to a natural disaster on US soil and letting an entire city rot?
The only way W. Bush is a strong leader is if we change the metric to "most money spent on the military to blow up other countries." All of those presidents got shit done (regardless of whether you like what they did). All of them demonstrated an ability to work with the other side to pass grand legislation. All of them demonstrated an ability to work foreign relationships to accomplish real things on the global stage. Obama can't hold a candle to any of them on any of these fronts. That isn't really Obama's fault though. The Republican position on pretty much any topic is not functional on the international stage, be it climate change, working with Russia or Iran or Cuba. Blaming the republicans is a total copout. All Obama had to do was invite a republican to co-author an initiative to split the party and get it passed. However, Obama refused to do this. He's too arrogant and too much of an ideologue. He poisoned the process from the outset by announcing to the republican legislators that "he won," ergo he was not going to compromise. That's on him. I can't help but notice you have chickened away from the Clinton vs Trump bet I suggested. Color me unsurprised :-) With regards to the "Obama refused to reach across the aisle" narrative that you and the conservative media have been pushing throughout the years, it's hilariously dishonest and simply not based on facts. The fact is that it is Republicans in Congress (both in the Senate and in the House) who decided right after losing the 2008 election that their best bet to make electoral gains in the following elections would be to garner unanimous opposition to Obama among thir ranks on everything they could afford to oppose him. This is extremely well documented (and is even extensively analyzed in political scientists Thomas E. Mann and Norman J. Ornstein's It's Even Worse Than It Looks: How the American Constitutional System Collided With the New Politics of Extremism). The blame for the lack of bipartisanship under Obama falls on Obama only in the fantasy land of Fox News and Breitbart. In the real world, the Republicans in Congress decided to oppose him systematically in order to score electoral points, and have disguised their calculated opposition to him under the claim that he has refused to compromise. Your entire post and view on this is their talking point -- you're either too informed on the topic to see it, or your ideological binders are keeping you (as usual) in the Republicans' parallel universe where everything is Obama's fault.
Another example: 1 hour after SCALIA's death was announced, McConnell announced blanket opposition to all President Obama nominees. Senate Republicans politicized the appointment before SCALIA's carcass was cold.
I am looking forwards to the spinning that will happen in this thread about Obama failing to reach across the aisle in that magical 60 minutes it took for McConnell to announce massive resistance.
|
wow, so much Obama hate. What do you guys describe as "strong"? Loud, bombastic, and unequivocal? By that definition, you'd be right.
In my mind, the better word for Obama is clever. He's been able to incrementally push his agenda forward in so many areas without resorting to shouting matches. On one Vox podcast they talked about how Obama was able to make back-room handshake deals with Boehner (and now Paul Ryan) over certain policies and then slip them into bills that would be voted on the next day. That's why the Republican leadership wanted Boehner out so badly. Both Boehner and Ryan know they won't be able to pass anything if they talk with their colleagues first; the level of obstructionism is just too high.
Obama made this decision when he was elected in 2008. He promised to be the "compromise" leader, hoping that the Republicans would buckle under the pressure of the voters who would vote them out of office if they continued to obstruct his policies. Obama lost on this front, but who seriously believed that this level of obstructionism would be tolerated in Congress? I for one never thought it would get this bad back in 2008.
Could Obama have changed tactics in 2012, seeing that his "compromise" policy was facing increasing obstructionism? Could he have become a "strong" leader then? Possibly. I think the one big fault I have on Obama was that he didn't take his populist base with him throughout his entire time in office. If he had mobilized his base (similar to what Sanders is doing right now), the Democrats might not have lost their majority in Congress in 2014. The liberal base is a fickle bunch; they need to constantly be reminded of who and what they're fighting for, or they quickly lose interest. Obama failed on this front.
Clearly the parties have become much more polarized today. I think it's unfair to put the lens of today onto Obama's tenure; I believe history will be much kinder to him in the future. Especially once people realize how a "strong" leader can cause just as much harm as good.
|
Bush cannot be considered a strong president in anyway. For one, at least during the first term, he didn't even have a mind of his own. If you read biographies and memoirs from people leading up to the Iraq War, they talk about how much involvement Dick Cheney had in focusing more power and decision-making into cabinet members vs the federal bureaucrats and army generals and the silencing of information that went against Cheney's narrative (CIA members were punished if they did not bring in reports that did not lead to "Saddam is working to acquire WMDs"). The Iraq War was a child of Cheney.
Which leads to my first sentence, Bush was not a strong president. He failed us, he was taken for a ride by his own VP, and I hope he paints his way to an early grave.
|
On February 23 2016 04:12 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On February 23 2016 04:04 oBlade wrote:On February 23 2016 03:58 Plansix wrote:On February 23 2016 03:53 Jockmcplop wrote:On February 23 2016 03:52 Plansix wrote:
By what metric? The second Bush was "stronger" by leading us a 5 trillion dollar war based by bad intelligence? Of being able to pass his agenda with his party in control of both houses of congress? By failing to respond to a natural disaster on US soil and letting an entire city rot?
The only way W. Bush is a strong leader is if we change the metric to "most money spent on the military to blow up other countries." I was gonna say something similar. Losing two wars simultaneously is no measure of strength by my mind. Apparently the sign of a strong leader is to go to war on two fronts and then cut taxes for the most wealthy people in the US. Because that is what great leaders do, things that make their people happy. And by people, I mean rich people. Edit: Let not even talk about the damage Bush did on the global stage. My god, the nightmare he created and the joke we were when he was in office. You can make an argument that one of the wars was superfluous (I would disagree), but the country was attacked - to say he created a nightmare seems to me to miss the thing entirely. The country was attacked by a group of Saudis, you do know Saddam wasn't behind it, right?
I don't recall saying that, but thanks for clarifying for anyone reading who was confused.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
