Forum
My summary (and the reasons for my discontent) of Obama's Presidency
|
greekboi wrote
at 7:45 PM, Wednesday May 18, 2011 EDT
Can someone PLEASE tell me what good Obama has done for this country since the start of his Presidency? You can write an essay or list bullets, either way is fine. I'm not sure you will be needing more than a sentence though.
Without further ado, here's my summary of Obama's Presidency (in no particular order of importance or chronology) : -he's shown a lack of convictions/decisiveness (very diplomatically stated) that has been displayed through his failure to implement any of the changes he advocated in his campaign that made him such an attractive candidate -->his health care reform is good in theory, but it is constitutionally offensive, and it won't work without tort reform (did i mention the bill was over 2000 pages long and didn't even begin to explain how the program would be implemented?) -->he did not close Guantanamo Bay, nor did he investigate if any human rights abuses occurred during GWB's term -->he did NOT end American involvement in the ongoing wars in the Middle East -->he bombed Gaddafi's personal dwelling (where his family lives) -->he dropped immigration reform -->he dumped his energy policy -->he is now caving in to the demands for increased oil drilling and less regulations, which is not only something that Liberals have historically been opposed to, but also can potentially endanger Americans while NOT dropping gasoline prices at all -->he announced a new national policy this week in which he promises to reduce drug use by focusing on prevention and treatment YET the $10 BILLION of spending on interdiction and law enforcement out of his $15.5 BILLION dollar drug-control budget is a record high in terms of dollars and percentage -->he showed an inability to react quickly to a major crisis - the massive oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico - yet the media coverage left him relatively unscathed (which is very interesting considering the amount of blame placed on Bush for the lack of cohesiveness surrounding Katrina) -->he used the aforementioned major crisis to promote green energy (instead of cleaning it up, lol) -->he created an "economic stimulus" plan (not to be confused with President Bush's "bailout") that he said would not allow unemployment to exceed 8%, although last month it reached 9% (A HISTORIC HIGH) The only thing clear about Obama's agenda is his vision of increasing entitlement program benefits and paying for it through increased taxation of those providing the most value to society (the high income earners) and over-taxing corporations. This is a great policy, if you support socialism. |
|
Boner Oiler wrote
at 12:48 PM, Sunday July 17, 2011 EDT yeah it's unfortunate. i think voting needs to be reformed and reregulated so that we don't end up with two constant monolithic parties controlling everything.
the alternative vote would help out with this a ton as well. |
|
greekboi wrote
at 1:27 PM, Sunday July 17, 2011 EDT no chance that America is ever not a two-party system, our government was created with that in mind. and dc, i think you may as well not vote if you're gonna go with a third party, which is why i voted McCain. He had established himself as a competent politician, a "maverick" if you will, for 20 years. I found it extremely odd that many Democrats as well as the media were attacking the other side because of Palin's inexperience as Governor when Obama was a first term Senator.
|
|
Boner Oiler wrote
at 1:34 PM, Sunday July 17, 2011 EDT like i said mccain would probably be senile and palin is an idiot so who knows who would "really" be running the country.
mccain in 2000 would be alright but mccain in 2008? no thanks. also pretty sure it didnt even occur to the founding fathers that political parties as they are today would develop. they assumed people would vote on individuals based on how well t hey represented the community (as in a republic). Of course that sort of went to shit when we stopped adding new members of the house and just redistributed the current number of congressmen according to the census data. i think regardless of how you feel about the weak and downtrodden of society (whether they are victims or whether they are lazy shits that deserve their poverty) you can agree that ultimately obama is just trying to get the best deal for the most people he can, can't you? or is there something to you that indicates some insidious plot for self promotion or profit in his administration (say along the lines of starting wars abroad without casus belli). |
|
Boner Oiler wrote
at 1:37 PM, Sunday July 17, 2011 EDT also palin was being attacked because she was fucking stupid. she had notes written on her god damn hand for fuck's sake during a live interview.
this shit isnt high school, that shit is not to be tolerate, especially not when you have a very old running mate and very good chance of becoming president of the united states if elected. |
|
greekboi wrote
at 1:38 PM, Sunday July 17, 2011 EDT yeah well, the founding fathers did anticipate a 2-party system. that is why George Washington was a strong proponent of abolishing them all together.
do you really think that Bush profited from any of his actions. the same can be said for him as you are saying about Obama, and I won't disagree with you. i believe that when both of them go home after a day of work and look themselves in the mirror, they truly think they are doing what is in the best interest of their nation. problem with Obama, which was a problem for Bush as well, is that what he is doing is shit for our nation. |
|
deadcode wrote
at 2:40 PM, Sunday July 17, 2011 EDT Voting third party is not a throw away vote. The GOP was a third party at one point.
There is no such thing as a throw away vote. Voting is more then just electing a representative; it influences what is talked about in future elections and whether or not candidates decide to run again. There are reasons that two parties naturally develop; but that doesn't mean that a third party cannot be promoted to a first party. |
|
Boner Oiler wrote
at 3:11 PM, Sunday July 17, 2011 EDT I do think bush and his family directly profited from the iraq war. in fact its not hard to find evidence that they indeed DID profit from it, google it.
http://www.google.com/search?q=bush+friend+profit+from+iraq+war&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a#sclient=psy&hl=en&client=firefox-a&hs=uuD&rls=org.mozilla:en-US%3Aofficial&source=hp&q=bush+friends+profit+from+iraq+war&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&fp=97eede9ed711c932&biw=1152&bih=674 there is as of yet no evidence that anything obama is doing is out of selfish profit. maybe you could find evidence of political "spoils" but thats about it and that's basically a presidential tradition. at the very least he doesnt hire cronies to fill jobs like the head of FEMA and shit. to dead: sorry I forgot you were also a political scientist. sorry to burst your bubble dead but not only does your vote not mean jack shit, voting third party is literally throwing away your vote in first-past-the-post. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_party_%28United_States%29 As you can see, those that have won as independents since 1990 (2 people) only did so through gaining prominence in the big parties or elsewhere (society). |
|
Boner Oiler wrote
at 3:13 PM, Sunday July 17, 2011 EDT oh and if you really dont have the historical perspective to understand why the whigs fell apart then you really have no historical perspective at all do you?
the whigs were essentially the anti-jackson party. when jackson went away so did they. the vacuum left room for the progressive republicans to take hold. |
|
jurgen wrote
at 3:21 PM, Sunday July 17, 2011 EDT man this was an interesting read, sorry I couldn't really contribute much
|
|
jurgen wrote
at 3:22 PM, Sunday July 17, 2011 EDT except maybe 100th
|