What do dems think of Obama now?

To be fair, President Obama wasn't the reason that the US killed UBL.

It's funny how inconsistent people are on the issue of the president's responsibility for various outcomes. Obviously Obama didn't personally go in and kill OBL, but it's also obvious that he had more to do with OBL dying than he did with, say, high unemployment when he took office or high deficits caused by the huge revenue decline that resulted from the GFC.

Anyway, if you consistently look at issues that the president actually does control, I think it's impossible to avoid the conclusion that Obama is one of the best presidents America has ever had. Certainly the best since FDR.
 
To be fair, President Obama wasn't the reason that the US killed UBL.[/ QUOTE]
Sure enough, UBL is the reason he was killed. Top ten biggest shitbags.

You can make the case (one that I think is pretty strong) that President Bush took his eye off of UBL, and that's why he wasn't killed sooner. However, President Obama had nothing to do with the discovery of UBL in Pakistan, as that credit belongs to the CIA. The President simply gave the order to use the US military to kill him after he had been found, which they did.
You could make that case, but it's unfair to W.
There wasn't reliable, actionable intelligence about UBL's location. Not much to be done if there's no acquirable target. That ain't W's fault.
I think all those "Where's UBL? Why hasn't he been caught yet?" were uninformed, bullshit gotcha questions. How the fuck was he supposed to answer?

What is very interesting is that when all the Cabinet members were asked their thoughts, the only significant voice of opposition to using the SEALs was Vice President Biden, according to Mark Bowden's book The Finish. That's one thing that has stuck with me these past few years.
Tbf they all had to make a largely guesswork assessment based on kinda sorta probably maybe. Not knowing, I might've voted no.

ETA There's a stray quote tag I cannot remove no matter how many times I try.
 
Very good president that had the misfortune of being in office with perhaps the worse congress in US history.
 
It's funny how inconsistent people are on the issue of the president's responsibility for various outcomes. Obviously Obama didn't personally go in and kill OBL, but it's also obvious that he had more to do with OBL dying than he did with, say, high unemployment when he took office or high deficits caused by the huge revenue decline that resulted from the GFC.

Anyway, if you consistently look at issues that the president actually does control, I think it's impossible to avoid the conclusion that Obama is one of the best presidents America has ever had. Certainly the best since FDR.
I agree that Presidents are often credited for things that they have nothing to do with, both good and bad. I'm more inclined to hand out criticism than I am praise in these areas though, for as President Truman said, "The buck stops here."

This is a judgment based on personal values, so we can respectfully disagree here. I think that President Obama did a fantastic job in dealing with the Chinese overall, maneuvered well with some of our allies, ending a few stupid policies that had been hanging around too long like our policy with Cuba and DADT, and I think that the Iran Deal was probably the best of all the terrible options we had at the time. Where I think he missed the mark was injecting himself into certain events that did not need commentary by the POTUS (the Trayvon Martin case comes to mind), downsizing the military to such low troop strengths (the smallest since the end of WWII) was a mistake (we tossed out a bunch of seasoned combat veterans for bad reasons, only to say that we needed a bunch of additional troops a year later, causing us to recruit just about anyone like we were doing during the Surge in Iraq, reducing operational readiness in the face of Russian, Chinese, and North Korean aggression), and by being risk averse when deciding between boots on ground versus drones (famously opting for drones most of the time). Some stuff, such as the mass collection programs of the NSA and the handling of Russia (going back to President Clinton, everyone who tries to cooperate with Putin ends up regretting it, so it's pretty obvious what I think is going to happen this time around), were black eyes, but I think anyone who had the job at that time, at least of the mainstream candidates, would have probably made similar decisions at the time. Overall, I thought he did an alright job. I won't call him the best, but he's certainly not the megalomaniac that some might have you believe.

The best since 1945? President Eisenhower did a ton for the country, so he might get my personal nod. President Truman was very good too from that era. I think President Carter is probably the most underrated President of recent memory, although he's not the best. He gave a State of the Union speech once where he was talking about drilling into shale in order to get energy independence, and people didn't really understand what he was saying. Today, we call this fracking. President Carter was a man ahead of his time in a lot of ways and wasn't a great communicator, so he struggled to get his vision to the people. But to be a great POTUS, you need to be able to communicate, and this was definitely one of President Obama's greatest attributes. Back on topic, President George HW Bush is someone I have tremendous respect for as well, and another person that I don't think people really understood how smart he was in handling a number of complex issues, although I think his son was an idiot.
 
ETA There's a stray quote tag I cannot remove no matter how many times I try.
Agreed that UBL was a shitbag. I think many of us in the US military will always hold a grudge against President Clinton for calling off the mission to kill him about 3 weeks before it happened. I believe that he called it off because he was afraid of another messy Blackhawk Down situation on his hands.

I'll offer my logic here: President Bush became intensely focused on Iraq. He wanted the heads of other terrorist leaders, specifically those of AQI. He asked his intelligence community and Generals about how Iraq was going, and he put no pressure on them to find UBL. President Obama, to his credit, would ask how the hunt for UBL was going, so they put forth effort to give him results. It's about resource allocation, and the simple act of asking questions influenced how the agencies did things.

Understood that it was a tough call, but they're all tough calls. I've made calls where I thought that the intel was bad, and I've used my judgment to say yes or no. I have an issue when a man who is supposed to making decisions about the security of the US gets cold feet. When you hold the rank of VP, cold feet is not acceptable as a leadership trait.
 
I agree that Presidents are often credited for things that they have nothing to do with, both good and bad. I'm more inclined to hand out criticism than I am praise in these areas though, for as President Truman said, "The buck stops here."

I think the goal should be an accurate assessment, whether we're talking about praise or criticism. The inconsistent approach just leads to partisanship determining the answer.

This is a judgment based on personal values, so we can respectfully disagree here.

To some degree, yes, but there are general issues that we can look at. Like, no one would say that higher unemployment is good or that we want to spend more on healthcare overhead. I don't think many would admit to thinking that making healthcare less accessible is good. Efficiency seems like a pretty universal goal. Stabilizing the debt situation seems like something most would agree is positive. Etc. Other things--like the move toward green energy--aren't quite universal now, but I think they will be. You listed some areas that are more subjective, and one can name many more beyond that. But on the things you can measure and are relatively uncontroversial (people dispute or are unaware of facts, but that's separate), he was pretty clearly an unusual success. I also happen to think that he was one of the GOAT heads of state, which is pretty subjective. Over time, I think we'll see his reputation continue (it's already begun) to improve and he'll be a consensus all-time great president.
 
he President simply gave the order to use the US military to kill him after he had been found, which they did.

and thats why he gets credit for the kill , it was on his order. Would have worked the same for bush but he didnt. You get to own it when you give the order
 
Oh yea!!!! That’s right lol. Obama said he got his information just like me and you....by watching the evening news!

You actually believed him LOL

Obama was the biggest clown ever.
You are too, too kind!
 
Agreed that UBL was a shitbag. I think many of us in the US military will always hold a grudge against President Clinton for calling off the mission to kill him about 3 weeks before it happened. I believe that he called it off because he was afraid of another messy Blackhawk Down situation on his hands.

I'll offer my logic here: President Bush became intensely focused on Iraq. He wanted the heads of other terrorist leaders, specifically those of AQI. He asked his intelligence community and Generals about how Iraq was going, and he put no pressure on them to find UBL. President Obama, to his credit, would ask how the hunt for UBL was going, so they put forth effort to give him results. It's about resource allocation, and the simple act of asking questions influenced how the agencies did things.

Understood that it was a tough call, but they're all tough calls. I've made calls where I thought that the intel was bad, and I've used my judgment to say yes or no. I have an issue when a man who is supposed to making decisions about the security of the US gets cold feet. When you hold the rank of VP, cold feet is not acceptable as a leadership trait.
Excellent post.
:meow:
 
LOL, Justin Beiber is immensely popular too...
Just proves that the masses are drawn to the banal, mundane and insipid.
Unfortunately, there is more to running a country than being liked and popular.
 
I think the goal should be an accurate assessment, whether we're talking about praise or criticism. The inconsistent approach just leads to partisanship determining the answer.
Consistency should be a goal, as long as the person in question is consistent in their views. If you praise or condemn one POTUS for something, it should apply across party lines.

To some degree, yes, but there are general issues that we can look at. Like, no one would say that higher unemployment is good or that we want to spend more on healthcare overhead. I don't think many would admit to thinking that making healthcare less accessible is good. Efficiency seems like a pretty universal goal. Stabilizing the debt situation seems like something most would agree is positive. Etc. Other things--like the move toward green energy--aren't quite universal now, but I think they will be. You listed some areas that are more subjective, and one can name many more beyond that. But on the things you can measure and are relatively uncontroversial (people dispute or are unaware of facts, but that's separate), he was pretty clearly an unusual success. I also happen to think that he was one of the GOAT heads of state, which is pretty subjective. Over time, I think we'll see his reputation continue (it's already begun) to improve and he'll be a consensus all-time great president.
Yes, we can all agree that low unemployment is a good thing, but the rank order of things is where you have to make judgments. For someone like me, I'm going to jump all over someone for certain areas of foreign policy, the annual NDAA, military policy, etc because I live it. I'm sure that you have your own issues by which you will judge a POTUS, and someone who doesn't do well in regards to those issues but does some good in other areas will still be someone you will not think highly of. This doesn't even breach the question, "Yes, unemployment was lowered, but was it lowered as much as it could have had another option been pursued?" As for popular opinion, it means very little to me. I'm a guy that thinks well of President Carter, haha. I'm used to being on an island with only a few that share my beliefs.
 
and thats why he gets credit for the kill , it was on his order. Would have worked the same for bush but he didnt. You get to own it when you give the order
I prefer to give the credit to those who do the work
 
Consistency should be a goal, as long as the person in question is consistent in their views. If you praise or condemn one POTUS for something, it should apply across party lines.


Yes, we can all agree that low unemployment is a good thing, but the rank order of things is where you have to make judgments. For someone like me, I'm going to jump all over someone for certain areas of foreign policy, the annual NDAA, military policy, etc because I live it. I'm sure that you have your own issues by which you will judge a POTUS, and someone who doesn't do well in regards to those issues but does some good in other areas will still be someone you will not think highly of. This doesn't even breach the question, "Yes, unemployment was lowered, but was it lowered as much as it could have had another option been pursued?" As for popular opinion, it means very little to me. I'm a guy that thinks well of President Carter, haha. I'm used to being on an island with only a few that share my beliefs.
There were some interesting declassified documents from Brazil's dictatorship that talked about the involvement of Carter on that mess. You may be interested on some of the findings
 
I for one was deeply disappointed in Obama for being so corporatist and really not being who he seemed to be when I voted for him. It was my own stupidity to believe in him though and if I had done more homework on his voting record before voting it would have been less disappointing.

Now though? Fuck, we would be damn lucky to have an actual adult in the white house.
Trump may speak his mind, but he's honest, possibly the only honest politician, he's doing everything he said he would.

And America is thriving
 
but he is still in office and when the DNC is not able to understand why, he will win 2020 too - popular vote or not, it doesn't matter. The left has also to convince few conservatives and independents. And they can't achieve this with even more progressive politics.


Lucky for you, you’ll still have a job until 2020 so continue face-rolling on that keyboard, Comrade.
 
Last edited:
Just to note, Obama has just warned South Africans, in a public speech, to be sure not to dismiss what white people and especially white men are saying, based on their identity.

Just.to.note.
 
Trump may speak his mind, but he's honest, possibly the only honest politician, he's doing everything he said he would.

And America is thriving
If he was honest he’d talk about all the whores he’s been with, the people he’s cheated, the women he’s sexually assaulted and the slavs he adores
 
Back
Top