Elections Blistering Criticism of President Obama's Legacy Highlights Dramatic Shift Inside Democratic Party

nostradumbass said:
{<huh}

None of them criticized him when he was actually in office. They do it now because he's no longer in office and the candidates criticizing him are trying to beat his VP.

They're also trying to beat the incumbent with a good economy, unemployment rates, wage growth, and lower taxes, no new wars, so they're reaching and inventing stuff to oppose because "things are going pretty well, but vote for me to change it up anyway" isn't a very good sales pitch, so now they make up things like "environmental racism and healthcare racism", free shit for everybody and no more standard border security.
Click to expand...

Some did. Sanders called a primary opponent for Obama in 2012 when Obama was working with the GOP to cut Social Security and increase the Medicare eligibility age.

https://www.thenation.com/article/yes-bernie-sanders-wanted-obama-primaried-in-2012-heres-why/


Additionally, the independent left media criticized Obama from the beginning of his administration to the end.

However, I agree that the cynical fucks on that debate stage kept their mouths shut when it suited them to do so.
 
Doing Trump's work for him.
Eat each other just as he wants.

He won't have to lift a finger
 
goldennirvana said:
It will continue. The left are totally unhinged at this point, fuelled by severe mental illness and an obsession with conspiracy theories about 'white supremacy'. When they eventually win another election, the damage they will do will be catastrophic.
Click to expand...

Lol this post which is absolute nonsense must have made you feel warm and fuzzy inside
 
Phisher said:
Some did. Sanders called a primary opponent for Obama in 2012 when Obama was working with the GOP to cut Social Security and increase the Medicare eligibility age.

https://www.thenation.com/article/yes-bernie-sanders-wanted-obama-primaried-in-2012-heres-why/


Additionally, the independent left media criticized Obama from the beginning of his administration to the end.

However, I agree that the cynical fucks on that debate stage kept their mouths shut when it suited them to do so.
Click to expand...
And he called Baltimore a 3rd world country. Bernie's a racist confirmed.
 
At 9:06 pm ET on Wednesday night, the Democratic Party's Obama era officially ended.

That was the moment Sen. Cory Booker looked over at Joe Biden, one of his rivals for the Democratic presidential nomination, and said, "Mr. Vice President, you can't have it both ways. You invoke President Obama more than anybody in this campaign. You can't do it when it's convenient and then dodge it when it's not." He was talking about immigration. Biden and by extension, Obama, were taking fire on the debate stage for deporting more immigrants in the first two years of their administration than President Trump had in his first two years.

As he did throughout the second night of last week's CNN Democratic Presidential debates, Biden defended Obama, citing his support for immigration reform. Paul Begala was among those taken aback by the debaters' repeated criticisms of the 44th President: "I was stunned at how disrespected he was tonight. On immigration, criminal justice and trade, Democrats denigrated the record of the man who saved the American economy, rescued the auto industry, signed the Paris Climate Accord and placed two impressive female justices on the Supreme Court. It was sad and stupid."
John Avlon asked, "When did Barack Obama become a Republican?" He noted, "if the policies of Barack Obama -- a person who is still America's most admired political leader -- are being castigated as Republican talking points, that's a sign of how unmoored our political conversation has become from reality." And for Democrats, Avlon contended, that risks helping re-elect Donald Trump.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/08/04/opinions/end-of-obama-era-opinion-column-galant/index.html
 
WTF2008 said:
Obama is the most charismatic President I've seen in my lifetime.

He's an amazing public speaker and his ideas and policies I've seen him bring up post-Presidency in interviews are great. He just wasn't a good President though.
Click to expand...

His speech the night he won in 2008 was beautiful.

Then his actually presidency started...
 
Jack V Savage said:
Note that in the real world, Obama is the most popular politician in the country and would easily win if he could run again. And Biden is the frontrunner in the Democratic primary because of his connection with Obama. You're confused because of how unrepresentative your personal bubble is.
Click to expand...

If that was true, Clinton would have won, and the so called front runner wouldn't be a dead duck, that just hasn't died yet.
 
VivaRevolution said:
If that was true, Clinton would have won, and the so called front runner wouldn't be a dead duck, that just hasn't died yet.
Click to expand...

If what were true? I said that Obama is the most popular politician in the country (objectively true), that he would win easily if he could run again (speculative, but strongly supported by the evidence), that Biden is the frontrunner in the Democratic primary (objectively true), because of his connection with Obama (speculative, but very solid). And that you're confused by because you read sources that are not representative of common knowledge and opinion (true). None of those facts are dependent on Clinton winning (WTF are you even talking about?), and your prediction that Biden will lose is speculative (IMO, it's possible--he's not a favorite against the field, but your confidence isn't justified).

The headline of this thread is not accurate. Obviously, candidates who are not leading are trying to take out the leading guy by attacking his record, and a small portion of that has been directed to his time as VP. There's no shift in the party against Obama, though, given that his approval rating among Democratic voters is *higher* now than it was while he was president. You have a lot of poorly informed ranting from the dregs of the WR ITT, but objectively, Obama's presidency was a massive success, and it's a safe bet that he'll go down in history as one of the greatest presidents we've ever had.
 
Jack V Savage said:
If what were true? I said that Obama is the most popular politician in the country (objectively true), that he would win easily if he could run again (speculative, but strongly supported by the evidence), that Biden is the frontrunner in the Democratic primary (objectively true), because of his connection with Obama (speculative, but very solid). And that you're confused by because you read sources that are not representative of common knowledge and opinion (true). None of those facts are dependent on Clinton winning (WTF are you even talking about?), and your prediction that Biden will lose is speculative (IMO, it's possible--he's not a favorite against the field, but your confidence isn't justified).

The headline of this thread is not accurate. Obviously, candidates who are not leading are trying to take out the leading guy by attacking his record, and a small portion of that has been directed to his time as VP. There's no shift in the party against Obama, though, given that his approval rating among Democratic voters is *higher* now than it was while he was president. You have a lot of poorly informed ranting from the dregs of the WR ITT, but objectively, Obama's presidency was a massive success, and it's a safe bet that he'll go down in history as one of the greatest presidents we've ever had.
Click to expand...

Clinton ran on Obama's record, and we have watched a crumbling of center left parties all across the globe.
 
VivaRevolution said:
Clinton ran on Obama's record, and we have watched a crumbling of center left parties all across the globe.
Click to expand...

And Clinton got a plurality of the votes, despite a bunch of flukey factors that hurt her. And then 2018 was a wave election in support of liberal politics. The reason so many of you guys are snapping and going on killing sprees is that you feel the country slipping away.
 
Jack V Savage said:
And Clinton got a plurality of the votes, despite a bunch of flukey factors that hurt her. And then 2018 was a wave election in support of liberal politics. The reason so many of you guys are snapping and going on killing sprees is that you feel the country slipping away.
Click to expand...

Is France a fluke jack, the UK, the center left coalition crumbling in Germany once Merkel is gone, 5-star, socialists and fascists in Greece, Canada is going right in the next election.

It's a trend jack.
 
VivaRevolution said:
Is France a fluke jack, the UK, the center left coalition crumbling in Germany once Merkel is gone, 5-star, socialists and fascists in Greece, Canada is going right in the next election.

It's a trend jack.
Click to expand...

France doesn't fit this narrative, and it's too speculative and too complex to get into overall. But in America, as I said, Obama is the most popular politician, and his approach is the most popular approach, which makes sense given that it was so successful. Note for example, that much of Europe did respond to the crisis with contractionary policy, leading to a much more drawn-out crisis, engendering more dissatisfaction, while we had a strong policy response (hindered to some extent by the right), leading to a much better recovery, and we're currently in pretty good shape.
 
Jack V Savage said:
France doesn't fit this narrative, and it's too speculative and too complex to get into overall. But in America, as I said, Obama is the most popular politician, and his approach is the most popular approach, which makes sense given that it was so successful. Note for example, that much of Europe did respond to the crisis with contractionary policy, leading to a much more drawn-out crisis, engendering more dissatisfaction, while we had a strong policy response (hindered to some extent by the right), leading to a much better recovery, and we're currently in pretty good shape.
Click to expand...

I think this statement may have some merit, but I also think the 50 year experiment of neo-liberal policy of liberalizing capital, has failed, and we have massive voter unrest all across the west from it.

Not sure if I really like the phrase neo-liberal here, as both Republicans and Democrats have been pushing for freeing capital for decades.

It is a fine term for academic use, not so much for common use.
 
VivaRevolution said:
I think this statement may have some merit, but I also think the 50 year experiment of neo-liberal policy of liberalizing capital, has failed, and we have massive voter unrest all across the west from it.
Click to expand...

Be clear here. What are you referring to and why do you think it failed?

As a kind of general point, worldwide economies have improved dramatically in that time period.

Liquid Smoke said:
Be nice Jack. This one's a bit over the top don't ya think?
Click to expand...

I think there's a generalized anger from some circles that is leading to acting out, and the basis of it is a perception of the uneducated and less intelligent that they are being left behind by modernity.
 
Jack V Savage said:
Be clear here. What are you referring to and why do you think it failed?

As a kind of general point, worldwide economies have improved dramatically in that time period.



I think there's a generalized anger from some circles that is leading to acting out, and the basis of it is a perception of the uneducated and less intelligent that they are being left behind by modernity.
Click to expand...

Because when you liberalized capital you destroyed labor's leverage, and workers have no ability to demand their fair share of said growth, hence income inequality growing everywhere in the west that has had this unrest.

Notice the Scandanavian countries don't have these political problems to this degree. At worst they are electing comediens, while Greece is literally voting communists and fascists into power.
 
VivaRevolution said:
Because when you liberalized capital you destroyed labor's leverage, and workers have no ability to demand their fair share of said growth, hence income inequality growing everywhere in the west that has had this unrest.
Click to expand...

You didn't clearly answer my question, but you kind of hinted. You're saying that opening up countries to foreign investment is the policy that has failed, and the metric you're looking at to judge it a failure is rising inequality?
 
Jack V Savage said:
You didn't clearly answer my question, but you kind of hinted. You're saying that opening up countries to foreign investment is the policy that has failed, and the metric you're looking at to judge it a failure is rising inequality?
Click to expand...

Kind of.

I am saying that removing borders as a restriction for capital gave them leverage over labor, undermining labor's ability to negotiate a fair share.

That this is the driver of income inequality, and the root of the rise of populism on both the left and right, all across the west.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
1,237,223
Messages
55,475,381
Members
174,786
Latest member
Biden's Diaper

Share this page

Back
Top