Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

Many people think Obama is the worst president in recent US History.

The angry reasons, which are coming from both the left and right, can include one or more of the following:


1. He panders too much to the conservatives.
2. He pushes too much leftist agendas.
3. He's the biggest presidential liar in recent history (some claim all of US History).
4. He is the harshest president on immigration in history despite him paying lip-service to the Hispanic community to get their votes in 2008 and 2012.
5. He's a war-monger president that directly lied about his anti-war positions during the 2008 election.
6. He's corrupt because he supports the unconstitutional detention of "enemy combatants."
7. He's the worst presidential spender in US History.
8. He supported or turned a blind eye to the corrupt handling of the bailout money.
9. Produced/approved substandard healthcare reform that did not meet with his campaign promises.
10. Sanctioned war-crime torture.
11. He supported and expanded the spying that Bush started: NSA. He lied about what he would do about this and, instead, went the exact opposite direction.
12. Has continued to support the slaughter of innocent people in our various wars that he promised to end: drone strikes.



Those are just reasons I hear and read from others: they are not necessarily my positions. I'll address each one in a separate post.


Did I miss a few of the talking points? Please, don't limit yourself to one side or the other (regardless of which side you feel you fall on).

Please contribute more. Dispute these points and future points. Agree with and/or support the points. Whatever! This thread is intended to discuss Obama's 2 terms and whether or not you think he is really the worst US President in modern History.

1. I can see how some leftists would believe something like this. We only need to turn to Affordable Healthcare Act for an example of him pandering to the conservatives (he neutered what could have been his biggest and longest lasting legacy as US President). So, yes, I can see how this functions as him appeasing conservatives.



2. This seemingly contradicts #1. I can see how it contradicts 1 and I can also see how it applies. I believe it is best represented with individual situations instead of making blanket statements like this. Sometimes, he panders to the left, sometimes, to the right. That's kind of what you'd expect a president to do.



3. This may be true. This may be true because of the information age and how it immortalizes everything you say. But I think part of the problem is he is broken so many promises that of course people are going to call him a liar. I feel that this criticism is coming more from the left.



4. This is a fact. This talking point is not disputable from either side.

http://www.thenation.com/article/179099/why-has-president-obama-deported-more-immigrants-any-president-us-history



5. I can see this criticism. In fact, this is one of my direct criticisms of Obama's presidency. He made big promises about our global wars and not only did he not stop them, he expanded our military conflicts. I do not see how anyone can dispute this talking about and be taken seriously. He won the Nobel Peace Prize...laughable. I bet you guys are regretting giving him that Peace Prize, eh?



6. This criticism is also true. Gitmo is probably one of the most shameful and obviously corrupt things we do as a country.



7. While this may be factually correct, there are mitigating factors that have contributed to Obama's atrocious spending record.

Read two opposing views on this point:

Obama is a liar and the biggest spender.

It was Bush's fault the budget is the way it is.

Obviously, now things are leaning a bit more towards the Forbes article than the recordpub article as spending has continued as a blistering pace under the Obama administration. I'd say that my position falls somewhere along the lines of "Obama directly lied about fixing the deficit" and "Obama is a corrupt president that said anything to get elected and impeachment proceedings should be undertaken."

I don't think he should be impeached but I think he lied so much, just to get votes, that he's pretty much not credible in the slightest, anymore.



8. This is partially true. Maybe he didn't implement the greatest oversight? See #1 and #2 for why both sides can argue it was to support the other (which I have seen). I think the truth is closer to incompetence than it is corruption.



9. This is partially true. It was the GOP's fault for butchering the ACA but it is also Obama's fault for not being a stronger president to get the healthcare reforms the US needed, wanted, and Obama promised. The blame is on both sides for this one.



10. Well, yeah, he kind of did/does because he is commander in chief and there's really no way he doesn't know what goes on. In fact, the is direct evidence that he's covering up some of the torture:

http://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2014/03/13/president-obamas-actions-support-cia-not-senate-in-torture-report-investigation



11. This is now my biggest complaint about Obama. He's taken a proverbial shit on the constitution with this point.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/intrusive-surveillance-obama-defends-nsa-spying-on-americans/5366314



12. This is also true. Here is a criticism from a generally leftist news site:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeff-bachman/does-the-obama-administra_1_b_5339585.html




So I average 8.5 out of 12 (with some only counting as half) on that 12 point (as far as whether or not I agree with the points). I probably have a worse score with that list because I have complaints from the fiscal right and the social policies left. So I will tend to be harsher on Obama than others.

he is not a bad pres.. the whole country is corrupt... why have two partys when it doesnt take common sense to see you need to help ppl and save the planet by all means... its really that simple...

Originally posted by Shabazz916
he is not a bad pres.. the whole country is corrupt... why have two partys when it doesnt take common sense to see you need to help ppl and save the planet by all means... its really that simple...

Here is one that swallowed the hook.

Obama is the top used car salesmen on the American made lot.

The Globalists are the general managers of the American lot.

He does what he is told.

From the outside it looks like he's had the legs cut out from under him at every turn. Any kind of genuine reform is opposed by republicans not on the basis that it's bad policy but because it's proposed by a democrat. Or that it would hit the lobbyists who pay congress and senate members campaigns. You end up with a president who can pass no legislation without compromise that makes it ineffectual. So i don't think he's wilfully bad. Just completely unable to do what he set out to.

Originally posted by jaden101
From the outside it looks like he's had the legs cut out from under him at every turn. Any kind of genuine reform is opposed by republicans not on the basis that it's bad policy but because it's proposed by a democrat. Or that it would hit the lobbyists who pay congress and senate members campaigns. You end up with a president who can pass no legislation without compromise that makes it ineffectual. So i don't think he's wilfully bad. Just completely unable to do what he set out to.




And how is ANYTHING Obama did (or failed to do) worse than Bush sending us into a contemporary Vietnam based on an outright lie about WMDs?

anybody who thinks we need parties.. who do not like ppl. because of their skin color is a fool...

Originally posted by Shabazz916
anybody who thinks we need parties.. who do not like ppl. because of their skin color is a fool...

False. All political parties like anyone who will vote for them.

http://www.nbra.info/

Originally posted by jaden101
From the outside it looks like he's had the legs cut out from under him at every turn. Any kind of genuine reform is opposed by republicans not on the basis that it's bad policy but because it's proposed by a democrat. Or that it would hit the lobbyists who pay congress and senate members campaigns. You end up with a president who can pass no legislation without compromise that makes it ineffectual. So i don't think he's wilfully bad. Just completely unable to do what he set out to.

This is exactly what happened to Bush. The Republicans do it to the Demarcates, and then the Demarcates do it to the Republicans. Then they start over!

Originally posted by jaden101
From the outside it looks like he's had the legs cut out from under him at every turn. Any kind of genuine reform is opposed by republicans not on the basis that it's bad policy but because it's proposed by a democrat. Or that it would hit the lobbyists who pay congress and senate members campaigns. You end up with a president who can pass no legislation without compromise that makes it ineffectual. So i don't think he's wilfully bad. Just completely unable to do what he set out to.

Funny how the foreigner see this.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
This is exactly what happened to Bush. The Republicans do it to the Demarcates, and then the Demarcates do it to the Republicans. Then they start over!

Not that comparable, the Dems let Bush do a lot, too much some would say. Remember all the jabs on how jellyfish the Dem party was when it came to dealing with Bush?

What do you think of Obama, Rob?

Originally posted by Robtard
Not that comparable, the Dems let Bush do a lot, too much some would say. Remember all the jabs on how jellyfish the Dem party was when it came to dealing with Bush?

No. I see NO difference. None what so ever.

Originally posted by Lestov16
What do you think of Obama, Rob? I think he's better than what we've had in the last 8 years

I think he's better than the 8 years we would have had with McCain and the ignoramus Palin, who now (McCain) wants to go to war with Russia

I think he should have kept more of his campaign promises

I think he should be a bit less moderate and a bit more left-side, cos that's what he was voted in for

I think his blackness painted a target on his head that the Rep/Conserv machine couldn't resist in making sure he comes off as an utterly complete failure

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
No. I see NO difference. None what so ever.

If you don't recall Bush being able to do just about anything he wanted for several years, then I don't know what else to tell you.

You honestly don't recall all the heat the Dem party received for basically bending over and spreading cheeks to Bush/Cheney?

Bush started a war based on lies and conducted it without any effective opposition. Obama was getting criticized for wanting to send small numbers of troops on observation missions. They definitely did not receive the same treatment from the opposing party during their terms.

Originally posted by Robtard
I think he's better than what we've had in the last 8 years

In some ways, yes, in some ways, no.

Originally posted by Robtard
I think he's better than the 8 years we would have had with McCain and the ignoramus Palin, who now (McCain) wants to go to war with Russia

Maybe. Probably.

Originally posted by Robtard
I think he should have kept more of his campaign promises




Originally posted by Robtard
I think he should be a bit less moderate and a bit more left-side, cos that's what he was voted in for



Originally posted by Robtard
I think his blackness painted a target on his head that the Rep/Conserv machine couldn't resist in making sure he comes off as an utterly complete failure

Originally posted by Lestov16
Bush started a war based on lies and conducted it without any effective opposition. Obama was getting criticized for wanting to send small numbers of troops on observation missions. They definitely did not receive the same treatment from the opposing party during their terms.

I think you don't understand the situation.


Bush: he was elected and people knew he would do war-stuff because he epitomized the "guns, Jesus, and 'merica" GOP candidate, to the max.


Obama: on the other hand, he ran for president under the auspice that he would be a peace maker, end the wars, and bring the US into better relations with the world. His message was so well-received and loved by the world that it won him a Nobel prize.

Guess what? Under Obama, the US has expanded its war efforts.



Both Bush and Obama are liars. But you can add a "ginormous ****ing hypocrite" to Obama's resume. I don't care that Obama would have been fought with his peacemaking policies. If he would have stood by his promise about military stuff, he'd be more respected, imo.

Obama has his issues, I don't think he's that bad though.

Originally posted by Robtard
If you don't recall Bush being able to do just about anything he wanted for several years, then I don't know what else to tell you.

You honestly don't recall all the heat the Dem party received for basically bending over and spreading cheeks to Bush/Cheney?

I remember the Affordable Care Act, and the Republicans being criticized for being to soft on Obama. Sounds the same to me.

Originally posted by dadudemon
. If he would have stood by his promise about military stuff, he'd be more respected, imo.

How was he supposed to predict in 2008 all of the geopolitical shit that would happen in the following 6 years? As far as the shit about torturing terrorists and keeping Gitmo open and such, well, they're war criminals. True there may be a few innocents in there but the majority of them have tried to murder innocent people or US soldiers, so they can stay there as long as they need to.

As far as the drone strikes go, the collateral damage is terrible, but what else can Obama do? If he sends in troops they could be killed. As shown by OBL, the Pakistani govt. can't be trusted to take care of the Taliban. If we leave them there they will cause more terror and/or plot attacks against US interests and innocent people. I know people criticize the US for playing "world policeman", but somebody has to.


Again, none of this stuff compares to Bush outright lying to start a massive war

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I remember the Affordable Care Act, and the Republicans being criticized for being to soft on Obama. Sounds the same to me.



Ahhh, yes. You have the perspective of an outsider looking in, though. You're neither GOP nor Dem, though...

IIRC, some republicans lost their seat in Congress because the ACA passed.

Originally posted by Lestov16
How was he supposed to predict in 2008 all of the geopolitical shit that would happen in the following 6 years?

Or, you know, the US could have not gotten involved with those activities, as well...

You know, winding down Iraq and starting up Afghanistan...

Just to name the biggest one.

Originally posted by Lestov16
As far as the shit about torturing terrorists and keeping Gitmo open and such, well, they're war criminals.

Oh really? Where is your evidence that they are war criminals for every single person in Gitmo?

Exactly. If not even the US Government, which would greatly improve how they look in this situation, can come up with evidence for a stupid amount of the prisoners, there, I'm not sure how you can come up with the evidence, as well.

You do know that Obama vowed to close Gitmo and have proper trials for them, right? And he directly broke that promise.

Originally posted by Lestov16
True there may be a few innocents in there but the majority of them have tried to murder innocent people or US soldiers, so they can stay there as long as they need to.

**** habeas corpus, due process, and justice, right? Let's torture and imprison anyone we want! WEEEE!

Originally posted by Lestov16
As far as the drone strikes go, the collateral damage is terrible, but what else can Obama do?

How about ****ing stop conducting military campaigns like an African Warlord? How about he be all about that peace he preached to us in 2008?


Originally posted by Lestov16
I know people criticize the US for playing "world policeman", but somebody has to.


No we don't and no one should.


Originally posted by Lestov16
Again, none of this stuff compares to Bush outright lying to start a massive war

This is incorrect. Obama not only lied, he painted a picture of a peaceful person when America was tired of our war campaigns. He then did just the opposite after elected. So he critized the Bush presidency and then did just the opposite.

That's worse than lying about a country having WMDs (they didn't have WMDs but they had so much war-stuff that it more than amounted to the equivalent of WMDs...I am not supporting our actions in Iraq, just saying that if the possession of WMDs is a game changer for you, you have them...just in the form of thousands of ballistics instead of 2 or 3 nukes).

I would like to add that the WMD discussion is only part of the question. The media has done a great job of making everyone thing the Iraq campaign was all about WMDs, initially, but it wasn't. WMDs was one of the major driving factors. I really hate having to defend Bush against Libtarded arguments...please don't make me do it!!!

I don't think he has been worse or better than any president in recent years.

People who thought Obama would be able to keep every thing he promised are delusional, those that think every thing he has done has been wrong have a hardcore agenda to consider.

Honestly I think Obama has done at the least a decent job. He is a human being that hasn't done a perfect job but no will be. The Economy is still chugging along just fine.

So you think Obama should have just let the insurgents overrun those countries, causing massive geopolitical problems?

As I said, not everybody. And closing Gitmo isn't as easy as it appeared to be. Where would you move the dangerous prisoners?

War criminals, dude.

I'd say we are more at peace than when were when Bush was in office. Geopolitics, dude. There are some fights we just can't avoid.

So let's say a large majority of countries in Africa, Eurasia, and the Middle East get overrun by jihadist insurgents without NATO assistance and cause a geopolitical clusterphuck. You'll probably wish there was a first world country involved then.

Again, saying the military campaigns Obama has placed us in are of the severity of those Bush put us in is quite a stretch. And again, did you really think we would just revert back to early 20th century isolationism? you do know that there are factors in our current military campaigns that were brewing far before Obama went into office, right? You think he can just be like "no more war" and it will be that simple?

"many people" believe he is the reptilian antichrist.

see: "weasel words".

Originally posted by Bashar Teg
"many people" believe he is the reptilian antichrist.

see: "weasel words".

He's not?

Originally posted by Lestov16
So you think Obama should have just let the insurgents overrun those countries, causing massive geopolitical problems?

Where is your evidence that this would happen? Even Pentagon experts don't agree with you.

http://www.cfr.org/iraq/debate-over-granting-amnesty-iraqi-insurgents/p10965

In fact, some experts say our presence there made the situation worse, not better.

Originally posted by Lestov16
Again, saying the military campaigns Obama has placed us in are of the severity of those Bush put us in is quite a stretch. And again, did you really think we would just revert back to early 20th century isolationism? you do know that there are factors in our current military campaigns that were brewing far before Obama went into office, right? You think he can just be like "no more war" and it will be that simple?

Not being the world police is not the same thing as "isolationism." In fact, it is the opposite. It would help repair all the damage we've done (under Bush and Obama) if we stopped all of our world police work.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Where is your evidence that this would happen? Even Pentagon experts don't agree with you.

http://www.cfr.org/iraq/debate-over-granting-amnesty-iraqi-insurgents/p10965

In fact, some experts say our presence there made the situation worse, not better.



Not being the world police is not the same thing as "isolationism." In fact, it is the opposite. It would help repair all the damage we've done (under Bush and Obama) if we stopped all of our world police work. From what it seems you're implying in your statement that Obama could have pulled out of the Iraqi war much sooner and that the article you posted is evidence supporting that notion?

If I am wrong please tell me but based on that assumption I don't think the article you posted supports that stance.

The only thing it says is that the President of Iraq willing to grant amnesty to some of the Insurgents who meet certain criteria. It doesn't say if America had pulled out earlier that things would have been better.

I'm agreeing or disagreeing with your stance just pointing out your article doesn't say anything about America leaving earlier being beneficial.

Originally posted by Newjak
From what it seems you're implying in your statement that Obama could have pulled out of the Iraqi war much sooner and that the article you posted is evidence supporting that notion?


No.

We didn't need to start more wars and continue our presence because it seems like the countries can self-stabilize without our God-Given Freedum.

Originally posted by dadudemon
No.

We didn't need to start more wars and continue our presence because it seems like the countries can self-stabilize without our God-Given Freedum. They can yes but at the same time it does depend on the individual situations.

Sometimes involvement is needed sometimes it isn't

Originally posted by dadudemon
Where is your evidence that this would happen? Even Pentagon experts don't agree with you.

http://www.cfr.org/iraq/debate-over-granting-amnesty-iraqi-insurgents/p10965

In fact, some experts say our presence there made the situation worse, not better.



Not being the world police is not the same thing as "isolationism." In fact, it is the opposite. It would help repair all the damage we've done (under Bush and Obama) if we stopped all of our world police work.

As noted above, that article is not relevant to your argument. And again, who is responsible for our presence there? The guy BEFORE Obama. Hell, both wars ended in Obama's term when he could have kept them going. It's pretty clear the new situation in Iraq doesn't make Obama or anybody happy. I'm pretty sure Obama would rather not be there.

So what would happen to all the jihadists when they see their main opposition has quit? You're working off Bayformers logic, where the absence of the "good guys" (figure of speech) supposedly will make the bad ones leave too. The Iraqi government can't fight the insurgents on their own, and a few pardoned terrorists isn't going to make a dent in the number of those who are still hostile. This war right now is a matter of circumstance, not, say, an excuse for the VP to hire out his mercenary company.

In terms of getting the US into combat, Obama was more or less forced to do so due to geopolitical circumstances, whereas the Iraq war was based off lies and greed.

And maybe Obama couldn't get everything done he said in 2008, but can you blame him? Facing opposition and criticism at every turn while trying to appease everybody?

I think Obama's main problem is, being the first black POTUS, he tried to act friendly and compromise so the media wouldn't label him as a "thug brute", but the GOP used his reluctance to confront them to create a massive plot to discredit him by any means necessary. Obama should have been tougher, but I can understand why he wasn't.

No. That title belongs to Bush.

I see no difference between Bush and Obama, they both serve government and keep the power at the top along with the rich, as well as making the rich, more rich, and taxing the poor more and more creating two classes a rich class and poor class. Masters and slaves.

Originally posted by Firefly218
No. That title belongs to Bush.

No way! Taft, by far, was the worst President.

Andrew Jackson was the worst IMO

Originally posted by Lestov16
Andrew Jackson was the worst IMO
Worst Modern President: Bush

Worst President In USA History: ^ Andrew JAckson

Why was Andrew Jackson the worst? He was the only one that stood up to the bankers and said no.

Originally posted by Time Immemorial
Why was Andrew Jackson the worst? He was the only one that stood up to the bankers and said no.

He's the one who sent the entire country into an economic panic because of his irrational hatred towards banks.

Also, he illegally infringed upon treaties and put thousands of natives in peril.

Worst of all, he was an idiot. I wouldn't hate him as much if he had an intelligent platform and legitimate principles.

Originally posted by Firefly218
Worst Modern President: Bush

Worst President In USA History: ^ Andrew JAckson

Bush is not even the worst modern President. That would go to Herbert Hoover.

Jackson could be considered a bad President due to the gleeful ****ing of thousands of Native Americans.

Originally posted by Newjak
They can yes but at the same time it does depend on the individual situations.

Sometimes involvement is needed sometimes it isn't

While I agree, I don't think we should get involved. Let the regional power-houses address the middle east, not the US. That's because they will have a direct interest in stabilizing the region.

I think we have a fiscal responsibility to fix our own issues.


If we were sitting pretty similar to a country like Norway, then I may consider more aid programs from the US (but never military action unless the UN asked for it and it was to stop heinous crimes).

Originally posted by Lestov16
As noted above, that article is not relevant to your argument. And again, who is responsible for our presence there? The guy BEFORE Obama. Hell, both wars ended in Obama's term when he could have kept them going. It's pretty clear the new situation in Iraq doesn't make Obama or anybody happy. I'm pretty sure Obama would rather not be there.

So what would happen to all the jihadists when they see their main opposition has quit? You're working off Bayformers logic, where the absence of the "good guys" (figure of speech) supposedly will make the bad ones leave too. The Iraqi government can't fight the insurgents on their own, and a few pardoned terrorists isn't going to make a dent in the number of those who are still hostile. This war right now is a matter of circumstance, not, say, an excuse for the VP to hire out his mercenary company.

In terms of getting the US into combat, Obama was more or less forced to do so due to geopolitical circumstances, whereas the Iraq war was based off lies and greed.

And maybe Obama couldn't get everything done he said in 2008, but can you blame him? Facing opposition and criticism at every turn while trying to appease everybody?

You probably were typing when I responded to Newjack which clarified the link.

Since your reply does not include any citations, I'll skip over it. Remember: volume does not necessarily equal quality in replies. I'm trying to work on that and since I do not feel your lengthy post contains anything that I should respond to, I'll just leave my points at these.

Simplify your points with a citation (the ones I asked for in my previous reply) and get back to me. I definitely want to continue the discussion but you have not resolved my concerns with your position. If you want our conversation to progress, first resolve my concerns, then we can move on to other sub-topics. If you cannot or are unable to resolve my concerns, then just say so and we can still move on. Let's avoid circular discussions, though.

Originally posted by Lestov16
I think Obama's main problem is, being the first black POTUS, he tried to act friendly and compromise so the media wouldn't label him as a "thug brute", but the GOP used his reluctance to confront them to create a massive plot to discredit him by any means necessary. Obama should have been tougher, but I can understand why he wasn't.


I agree with this. But I take a harder stance on Obama since I supported him (but did not vote for him) in 2008. Additionally, I do not think Obama is dumb enough to have forgotten some of the promises he made that got him elected. Simply put, he's done some hypocritical things and he's a huge liar. I have a pretty good memory and it goes all the way back to when Bush Sr. was elected. Not even the "read my lips" lie Bush Sr. told amounts to the major lies that Obama has wrought.

Let me be clear that I strongly disliked Bush. I thought he was an evil person and still do. I generally consider myself neutral to political parties in the US but I have recently taken a liking to Nader (stupid, I know...but that's just what's up). I also like Ron Paul. A political survey I posted on KMC, 2 years ago, said I jive with Ron Paul on 85% of the issues. There are some issues I strongly disagree with him on. His foreign policy is one of the ones I mostly agree with (but I wouldn't be so extreme as him on the isolation).

Originally posted by Firefly218
He's the one who sent the entire country into an economic panic because of his irrational hatred towards banks.

Also, he illegally infringed upon treaties and put thousands of natives in peril.

Worst of all, he was an idiot. I wouldn't hate him as much if he had an intelligent platform and legitimate principles.

Ok never mind, he sounds like a idiot. Or what we are made to believe. I don't trust anything in history books or anything anymore, they have been re written and changed the authenticity of the past.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Bush is not even the worst modern President. That would go to Herbert Hoover.
Well, yeah. Depends on how you define "modern".

Obama is reading this.

Originally posted by dadudemon
While I agree, I don't think we should get involved. Let the regional power-houses address the middle east, not the US. That's because they will have a direct interest in stabilizing the region.

I think we have a fiscal responsibility to fix our own issues.


If we were sitting pretty similar to a country like Norway, then I may consider more aid programs from the US (but never military action unless the UN asked for it and it was to stop heinous crimes).

What regional powerhouses? Iran? You really want to put the fate of Iraq in Iran's hands?

Yes we do, but we're already in this fight thanks to Bush, so we can't exactly call it quits now

I understand what you're saying. We don't have the money to fund this war, but again. this war is a matter of circumstance. Jihadists groups are trying to fill the power vacuum left by Saddam, and since we're the ones most equipped to deal with them, we gotta do what we gotta do, lest you wish to see Iraq turn into a Salafist state. And again, how do you think the terrorists in other countries will act when the see the US is not combating them? There will be insurgent-led coups all over the place and massive geopolitical turmoil. You can't blame Obama for a problem the US (and the rest of the world) have been brewing for decades.

Originally posted by dadudemon

I agree with this. But I take a harder stance on Obama since I supported him (but did not vote for him) in 2008. Additionally, I do not think Obama is dumb enough to have forgotten some of the promises he made that got him elected. Simply put, he's done some hypocritical things and he's a huge liar. I have a pretty good memory and it goes all the way back to when Bush Sr. was elected. Not even the "read my lips" lie Bush Sr. told amounts to the major lies that Obama has wrought.

Let me be clear that I strongly disliked Bush. I thought he was an evil person and still do. I generally consider myself neutral to political parties in the US but I have recently taken a liking to Nader (stupid, I know...but that's just what's up). I also like Ron Paul. A political survey I posted on KMC, 2 years ago, said I jive with Ron Paul on 85% of the issues. There are some issues I strongly disagree with him on. His foreign policy is one of the ones I mostly agree with (but I wouldn't be so extreme as him on the isolation).

So you are mad because Obama couldn't fulfill all of his campaign promises? Are you Randy Marsh or something? With the geopolitical situations constantly brewing and a Congress practically devoted to undermining him, how is he supposed to get anything done?

Originally posted by Lestov16
So you are mad because Obama couldn't fulfill all of his campaign promises? Are you Randy Marsh or something? With the geopolitical situations constantly brewing and a Congress practically devoted to undermining him, how is he supposed to get anything done?


He is Randy Marsh

Originally posted by Lestov16
So you are mad because Obama couldn't fulfill all of his campaign promises? Are you Randy Marsh or something? With the geopolitical situations constantly brewing and a Congress practically devoted to undermining him, how is he supposed to get anything done?

No, I am disenfranchised with Obama because he directly lied about many things and he's done some atrociously hypocritical things during his time at the White House. I was dissatisfied with Bush for mostly other reasons.


I want a good president, for once. I thought Clinton was good but he couldn't keep it in his pants.

Calm down, Randy.

Originally posted by Time Immemorial
Obama is reading this.

Good.


Obama, stop being a douchebag, liar, and a hypocrite. Who cares if congress fights you left and right? Still do what you promised us. We all know the GOP are a bunch of babies.

Well sadly, a good president wasn't in the cards. It was either Obama or a GOP crony. We got the best we could get. Deal wit it, dawg

Originally posted by Lestov16
Well sadly, a good president wasn't in the cards. It was either Obama or a GOP crony. We got the best we could get. Deal wit it, dawg


I agree.



cry

Originally posted by Lestov16
Well sadly, a good president wasn't in the cards. It was either Obama or a GOP crony. We got the best we could get. Deal wit it, dawg

No! I have to disagree. It was either a Jack-ass or a GOP crony. That is always the choice. Obama is nothing special.

Originally posted by dadudemon
No, I am disenfranchised with Obama because he directly lied about many things and he's done some atrociously hypocritical things during his time at the White House. I was dissatisfied with Bush for mostly other reasons.


I want a good president, for once. I thought Clinton was good but he couldn't keep it in his pants. So, essentially, you're disenfranchised with Obama because you have/had an unrealistic expectation of politicians?

Originally posted by Tzeentch
So, essentially, you're disenfranchised with Obama because you have/had an unrealistic expectation of politicians?

lol

GOP had a halfwit swimsuit model in 2008 for VP, and a couple of douchebag androids in 2012. then attempt to sabotage the winner for both his entire terms. what a joke.

obstruct progress, contribute nothing, blame obama. -GOP strategy

Originally posted by Bashar Teg
GOP had a halfwit swimsuit model in 2008 for VP, and a couple of douchebag androids in 2012. then attempt to sabotage the winner for both his entire terms. what a joke.

obstruct progress, contribute nothing, blame obama. -GOP strategy

And then to top it all off, we end up with Obama. What a worthless couple of elections.

Originally posted by Bashar Teg
GOP had a halfwit swimsuit model in 2008 for VP, and a couple of douchebag androids in 2012. then attempt to sabotage the winner for both his entire terms. what a joke.

obstruct progress, contribute nothing, blame obama. -GOP strategy

Originally posted by Lestov16
So you are mad because Obama couldn't fulfill all of his campaign promises? Are you Randy Marsh or something? With the geopolitical situations constantly brewing and a Congress practically devoted to undermining him, how is he supposed to get anything done?

What do you call a person who is prevented from winning by his/her competition?

Answer: Looser! lol

Originally posted by Bashar Teg
GOP had a halfwit swimsuit model in 2008 for VP, and a couple of douchebag androids in 2012. then attempt to sabotage the winner for both his entire terms. what a joke.

obstruct progress, contribute nothing, blame obama. -GOP strategy

Pretty much how I see it.

Originally posted by dadudemon
While I agree, I don't think we should get involved. Let the regional power-houses address the middle east, not the US. That's because they will have a direct interest in stabilizing the region.

I think we have a fiscal responsibility to fix our own issues.


If we were sitting pretty similar to a country like Norway, then I may consider more aid programs from the US (but never military action unless the UN asked for it and it was to stop heinous crimes). Fair enough and in some cases I would agree with but with the way global economies are intertwined these days something happening in the middle east could potentially have a large impact on the US and our issues.

I do agree we have issues here we need to fix as well.

Originally posted by Bashar Teg
GOP had a halfwit swimsuit model in 2008 for VP, and a couple of douchebag androids in 2012. then attempt to sabotage the winner for both his entire terms. what a joke.

obstruct progress, contribute nothing, blame obama. -GOP strategy



Originally posted by BackFire
Pretty much how I see it.

Originally posted by Newjak
Fair enough and in some cases I would agree with but with the way global economies are intertwined these days something happening in the middle east could potentially have a large impact on the US and our issues.

I do agree we have issues here we need to fix as well.

Seems like we pretty much agree on our global policy. If I were an 8, you'd be a 6 on the "non-intervention" policy.

Right now, I think the US is sitting at a 2 to 1 on the "non-intervention policy."


To better flesh out what I meant with the UN stuff, I think the UN should have stepped in with the Somalian genocide and asked for various help from around the world, to give an example.

Probably the same holds true for the Kurdish situation in Iraq in the 80s but, iirc, the UN was not as mature as it is, now, making such a decent call to arms and aid an impossibility. However, here's the problem: we pretty much setup the problem in Iraq, to begin with. It was the US's fault (again, pretty much) that the events against the Kurdish took place in Iraq because we were meddling with the machinations of other countries like we should not have.

I think most of the time when someone calls a president "bad" or "good" they're not looking at whether the president is competent or incompetent but whether the president was "bad" or "good" for them and their demographic/party/country/interests.

President Regan is a great example of a decisive president who is still today reviled by significant segments of the population and idolized by others. While I'd argue that Regan made the USA a stronger country and helped hasten the end of the Soviet Union with his aggressive policies, he failed to adequately address racial and other social issues and those same aggressive policies under different circumstances could have led to a catastrophic war with the USSR.

As for Obama, depends on who you ask. If you ask me, I think he's an adequate president who's got his hands tied at home and thus appears ineffuctual. In terms of foreign policy, he's probably one of the worst presidents we've ever had, but I put that down on him trying to rehabilitate America's global image as a global policeman while also trying to keep policing the world. What's happened the last few years is a series of half-hearted interventions around the world that have caused almost no American casualties but have failed to change anything significant. The only real product of these interventions and 'red lines' is to dilute the credibility of American power. America has now become the sheriff with the really big gun that he never draws. In sum: America is still not well liked around most of the world, but now America also isn't respected as much as it used to be.

I think by the time the true impact of Obama's presidency can be determined most people won't really care and will be debating about the current impact of whatever new president is in office at the time.

If nothing else he maybe one of the more scrutinized presidents of modern times and some of that has possibly held him back from making the choices he really wants to make.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
I think most of the time when someone calls a president "bad" or "good" they're not looking at whether the president is competent or incompetent but whether the president was "bad" or "good" for them and their demographic/party/country/interests.

President Regan is a great example of a decisive president who is still today reviled by significant segments of the population and idolized by others. While I'd argue that Regan made the USA a stronger country and helped hasten the end of the Soviet Union with his aggressive policies, he failed to adequately address racial and other social issues and those same aggressive policies under different circumstances could have led to a catastrophic war with the USSR.

As for Obama, depends on who you ask. If you ask me, I think he's an adequate president who's got his hands tied at home and thus appears ineffuctual. In terms of foreign policy, he's probably one of the worst presidents we've ever had, but I put that down on him trying to rehabilitate America's global image as a global policeman while also trying to keep policing the world. What's happened the last few years is a series of half-hearted interventions around the world that have caused almost no American casualties but have failed to change anything significant. The only real product of these interventions and 'red lines' is to dilute the credibility of American power. America has now become the sheriff with the really big gun that he never draws. In sum: America is still not well liked around most of the world, but now America also isn't respected as much as it used to be.

Reagan is an example of a president that is disproportionately praised from his objective performance (both based on his campaign promises and his actual performance). One of the most irritating things about Americans is how much they praise Reagan. Even many Dems praise Reagan's presidency but it was littered with mistakes, lies, and broken promises just like most presidencies.

Originally posted by Newjak
I think by the time the true impact of Obama's presidency can be determined most people won't really care and will be debating about the current impact of whatever new president is in office at the time.

If nothing else he maybe one of the more scrutinized presidents of modern times and some of that has possibly held him back from making the choices he really wants to make.

Yup. My brother-in-law, who is an economist, gets frustrated with stuff on the TV when major news outlets (like CNN, Fox News, etc.) talk about the immediate and all-encompassing impacts of economic and tax policies of a president. I have heard and read this several times from other economists: it takes a bit (2-4 years) for a president's policies to have a substantial impact on the economy. To Obama's credit, some of his policies in his first term are actually coming to fruition in his second term and the economy is improving, partially, due to his and congress' actions.

I am of the opinion that the repair to the economy cannot be attributed very much to the Obama administration. I think he has had very little positive impact on economic recovery in the US. In some ways, he has actually worked against the recovery. In others, he has benefited it. I think Romney would have been a better choice for 2008 and 2012 for economic recovery. Again, we had to choose between a turd sandwich and a douchebag in both elections (imo).

Originally posted by Firefly218
He's the one who sent the entire country into an economic panic because of his irrational hatred towards banks.

Also, he illegally infringed upon treaties and put thousands of natives in peril.

Worst of all, he was an idiot. I wouldn't hate him as much if he had an intelligent platform and legitimate principles. Economic panic like 1929 or 2008?

Originally posted by It's xyz!
Economic panic like 1929 or 2008?

I think he was talking about Andrew Jackson.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I think he was talking about Andrew Jackson. I think I was asking if the panic was like 1929 or 2008.

Originally posted by It's xyz!
Economic panic like 1929 or 2008?

Well....


Perhaps closer to 2008 but not as bad as 1929. In fact, most historians agree that we were righted by 1843. Their crash occurred around 1837. Actually, in some ways, the 2008 recession is worse than the one from 1837 because some economists (Maybe not...maybe it is just the people that think that...) think we are still recovering and still in a recession.

http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/03/14/people-think-were-in-a-recession-dont-blame-them/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=0

You know what one of the major contributing factors to that crash was? Shitty loans. You'd think America would have learned its lesson from history about giving out sub-prime loans.


Of course, there were other factors that contributed to the recession/depression of 1837 (such as the Specie Circular which pretty much forced people to have to use hard currency (Gold and Silver) in the West).

Originally posted by dadudemon
Well....


Perhaps closer to 2008 but not as bad as 1929. In fact, most historians agree that we were righted by 1843. Their crash occurred around 1837. Actually, in some ways, the 2008 recession is worse than the one from 1837 because some economists (Maybe not...maybe it is just the people that think that...) think we are still recovering and still in a recession.

http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/03/14/people-think-were-in-a-recession-dont-blame-them/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=0

You know what one of the major contributing factors to that crash was? Shitty loans. You'd think America would have learned its lesson from history about giving out sub-prime loans.


Of course, there were other factors that contributed to the recession/depression of 1837 (such as the Specie Circular which pretty much forced people to have to use hard currency (Gold and Silver) in the West). That tells me that the bank caused the crash and Jackson reacted by shutting down the bank.

Originally posted by It's xyz!
That tells me that the bank caused the crash and Jackson reacted by shutting down the bank.

There was no federal reserve bank back then.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
There was no federal reserve bank back then. There was, but Jackson killed it. He regarded doing so as his most important accomplishment.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
There was no federal reserve bank back then. No Federal Reserve, but a central bank nonetheless.

Nixon was the worst period.

Originally posted by Stoic
Nixon was the worst period. B-b-but Obama! He's a Kenyan Jew Hitler.

Originally posted by Stoic
Nixon was the worst period.

From what I read, he was a mixture of shit and decent.

The old folks tell me he was great until the scandal.

Love him, hate him, you don't know him.

He fell short of his plans, as would any non-imperialistic president, because Legislature could have his reputation crucified at any moment.

Legislature as in the upper-class, NOT the elected officials whom are controlled by the upper-class like mindless puppets.

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
There was, but Jackson killed it. He regarded doing so as his most important accomplishment.

Besides knowing ****ing Gun Kata.

Originally posted by Stealth Moose
Besides knowing ****ing Gun Kata.

W-what?

Originally posted by dadudemon
W-what?

Andrew Jackson duels like people breath, dude.

Originally posted by Stealth Moose
Andrew Jackson duels like people breath, dude.

I figured it was something like this. But he, apparently, had bullet fragments all over his body meaning he was a shit dueler and did not have any gun kata skills to speak of.


He just got lucky. uhuh


Don't sully John Preston's craft with comparisons to Plebs like Jackson. uhuh

Well, IRL there aren't that many masters of Gun Kata. I think it takes brass balls the size of Buckingham Palace to just shrug off shots and beat people down with your cane.

Originally posted by Oneness
Love him, hate him, you don't know him.

He fell short of his plans, as would any non-imperialistic president, because Legislature could have his reputation crucified at any moment.

Legislature as in the upper-class, NOT the elected officials whom are controlled by the upper-class like mindless puppets.


To be fair, I think saying fell short is a mis-diagnoses, considering he's gone against and campaigned against everything he won his election on.

Originally posted by jinXed by JaNx
To be fair, I think saying fell short is a mis-diagnoses, considering he's gone against and campaigned against everything he won his election on. More of an understatement because the reasons are still as I explained.

I don't care who's in office.

If he/she is not me, he or she will fall in line under and beneath legislature as they are by being sound of mind enough to get into the executive branch in the first place.

If I had it my way I'd crucify the officials in legislature for accepting bribes to manipulate policy the upper-class's way.

I'd merc anyone who practiced sly business.

I'd tell them straight up they don't have the God-given right to do something just because they can. Because I could immolate the abominable.

We're gonna switch on the news one day to find you've climbed a clock tower.

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
We're gonna switch on the news one day to find you've climbed a clock tower. You think I'm bad?

Ask the impoverished citizens of East Saint Louis what they think about the rich who are apathetic to their unimaginable circumstances.

If you guys don't mind me asking,what did you think about John F. Kennedys presidency?

He was the first black president.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I figured it was something like this. But he, apparently, had bullet fragments all over his body meaning he was a shit dueler and did not have any gun kata skills to speak of.


He just got lucky. uhuh


Don't sully John Preston's craft with comparisons to Plebs like Jackson. uhuh Jackson believed in "ladies first".

Originally posted by P-Geyser
If you guys don't mind me asking,what did you think about John F. Kennedys presidency? All I really know is his foreign policy was "Cuba and Vietnam are not the United States", which to me is fair enough.

I also hear he went against oil and steel companies and wanted the fed to print money backed by silver, and he was against secret societies...

Oh and the space race, where he got mad at NASA for not having female astronauts.

Kennedy might have believed that Cuba and Vietnam aren't the U.S. but he was resp. for sending military advisers and trainers to the region in as early as 1961 in order to form CIDG groups among ARVN and indigenous mountain peoples such as the Montagnards. So regardless of all the talk about Johnson and Nixon, it all started with Kennedy.

It did, but careful not to go as far as laying disproportionate blame on him for escalation that happened after his death.

I thought it started with Eisenhower?

Originally posted by It's xyz!
I thought it started with Eisenhower? He sent military advisers, but it was Kennedy who began ramping up equipment, weapons, and eventually full-on combat personnel.

he has not done a damn thing improve America or it's sovereignty. With a generic smile a formulaic grin he subtly pisses all over what he stands in control of.

Who do you think would have done a better job?

I'm surprised people have forgotten 9/11, Iraq and the recession which all happened under Bush.

Doesn't matter anyway. 20 years ago everyone thought Clinton was the worst president for not doing what he promised....just like Obama.

Originally posted by Tzeentch
Who do you think would have done a better job?

The following list of candidates probably would have done a better job (and they are presented in relative order of best to worst with a nod to viability with the Exception of Nader...)


1. Ralph Nader.
2. Ron Paul.
3. Herman Cain.
4. Mitt Romney.
5. Gary Johnson.


Notice how none of those were Democrats?

That is because I do not think Obama nor John Wolfe were good candidates. Nor do I think the Democratic party has many good candidates for 2016. I really think Romney would have been the best choice in 2008 and 2012 out of the major candidates. I liked Herman Cain...he would have been interesting as a US President. Keep in mind that I would prefer neither democrat not republican in office. But I do know that that is a pipe-dream so I am talking about non-pipe-dream realities, here (do not take my words as wholehearted endorsements of these candidates because we disagree on some major issues).


Andrew Cuomo seems like an excellent democratic president for 2016. He also seems like a major *sshole...but I like his type of personality. He seems to have done stuff in New York that I would largely support except for the support system for runaways (that is pretty much the only thing I strongly disagree with what he has done in his reforms).

Originally posted by Stoic
Nixon was the worst period.
Nixon probably wasn't much more sketchy than most of the presidents who came before him, he was just worse at hiding it, or perhaps hadn't caught up with modern technology like compact audio recording.

In terms of what he accomplished, he was actually a pretty competent president.

The worst president is always the current president. That guy always sucks ass.

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
The worst president is always the current president. That guy always sucks ass.

He's the lead of a sinking ship, but he only makes it worse.

Originally posted by dadudemon
The following list of candidates probably would have done a better job (and they are presented in relative order of best to worst with a nod to viability with the Exception of Nader...)


1. Ralph Nader.
2. Ron Paul.
3. Herman Cain.
4. Mitt Romney.
5. Gary Johnson.


Notice how none of those were Democrats?

That is because I do not think Obama nor John Wolfe were good candidates. Nor do I think the Democratic party has many good candidates for 2016. I really think Romney would have been the best choice in 2008 and 2012 out of the major candidates. I liked Herman Cain...he would have been interesting as a US President. Keep in mind that I would prefer neither democrat not republican in office. But I do know that that is a pipe-dream so I am talking about non-pipe-dream realities, here (do not take my words as wholehearted endorsements of these candidates because we disagree on some major issues).


Andrew Cuomo seems like an excellent democratic president for 2016. He also seems like a major *sshole...but I like his type of personality. He seems to have done stuff in New York that I would largely support except for the support system for runaways (that is pretty much the only thing I strongly disagree with what he has done in his reforms). Dennis Kucinich is miles above any of the names you mentioned.

Herman Cain....hahahahahahaha


Hahahahahahahahahahahahahha


Hahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahhaha
hahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahhahahaha
hahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahha


Ha

Originally posted by It's xyz!
Dennis Kucinich is miles above any of the names you mentioned.

I don't like many of his talking points. I do not think he has mass appeal, either. Lastly, he's not the correct kind of *sshole but he is an *sshole.


Try this site out:

http://www.isidewith.com/


It's fun.

It generally tells you who you "side with" on political issues.

This says it all of of the empty suit in the white house

http://www.whitehouse.gov/

Holy shit, this site is amazing!

Here is where I fall on the political spectrum categories graph:

http://i.imgur.com/i4kLIBP.jpg



And here is a summary of my political issues by party:

http://i.imgur.com/ozQAlpF.jpg


I really like the results of that second image. I know quite a bit about each party area and, I must say, I agree with the results.



On the tests, however, I found that about 1/3 of the time, I did not fully agree with any of the choices. You can write in your answer but, imo, that throws off the results of the test.


Don't forget to rate how important those issues are to you.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Herman Cain....hahahahahahaha


Hahahahahahahahahahahahahha


Hahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahhaha
hahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahhahahaha
hahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahha


Ha

Out of the Republican candidates in 2012, I liked Herman Cain more than most.

I think I had a 64% agreement with Cain on issues: the second most of any GOP candidate.

Don't forget my words, here:

"(do not take my words as wholehearted endorsements of these candidates because we disagree on some major issues)"

Originally posted by dadudemon


Don't forget to rate how important those issues are to you.

Too bad none of the sites info has anything to do with whats going on in America or the world such as, Iraq, Afghanistan, the Border Crisis, Ebola in Africa, Illegal Immigration.

Originally posted by Time Immemorial
Too bad none of the sites info has anything to do with whats going on in America or the world such as, Iraq, Afghanistan, the Border Crisis, Ebola in Africa, Illegal Immigration. ... did you... did you actually do the poll?

Originally posted by Time Immemorial
Too bad none of the sites info has anything to do with whats going on in America or the world such as, Iraq, Afghanistan, the Border Crisis, Ebola in Africa, Illegal Immigration.

It is not a news site: it is a political spectrum test.


I do not think the Ebola in Africa stuff is covered.


But, yeah, the Border Crisis, Iraq, Afghanistan, Illegal Immigration, and plenty of economic and environmental questions are present in the test. Just be sure to click the "expand more questions" option in the areas that interest you the most.


Then take screenshots, upload them to an image hosting site, and post your results in this thread. I would be curious as to what your responses are. I secretly hope we match up so we can be BFFs (I'm not kidding).

Originally posted by Time Immemorial
This says it all of of the empty suit in the white house

http://www.whitehouse.gov/

It seems like you're just reaching for anything so you can say "Obama sucks!" as much as possible, TBH.

I have 97% solidarity with Gavin Newsom.

How does that make you feel, Rob?

I heard him speak at Redwood High School during my BFF's little bro's graduation about 6 years ago. He was some seriously slick hair.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I don't like many of his talking points. I do not think he has mass appeal, either. Lastly, he's not the correct kind of *sshole but he is an *sshole.


Try this site out:

http://www.isidewith.com/


It's fun.

It generally tells you who you "side with" on political issues. If by assh*le you mean someone who talks political sense, then I understand what you mean by calling him an assh*le.

If you don't, which I suspect because you have a phenomenon as "the right kind of ass*ole," then no. I don't understand what you mean.

Dennis Kucinich is probably the only American politician who could be called a politician.

Ron Paul comes close, but he has crazy ideas like gold or silver fixing the economy.

Originally posted by It's xyz!
If by assh*le you mean someone who talks political sense, then I understand what you mean by calling him an assh*le.

If you don't, which I suspect because you have a phenomenon as "the right kind of ass*ole," then no. I don't understand what you mean.

Yes, there are different kinds of *ssholes in this world, contrary to what Team America taught us.

I think Kucinich is the wrong kind of *sshole because he's kind of dumb (as in, not very smart). He is smart enough to get to where he is but not smart enough to do any better than Obama: he would do worse. He also is the classic type of *sshole: arrogant, talks over people, will never change his mind about stuff, and cannot admit he is ever wrong. That's not the type of *sshole you want in the White House.

Originally posted by It's xyz!
Dennis Kucinich is probably the only American politician who could be called a politician.

WTF does this even mean? Remember Darth Jello? Do you remember that guy? Do not turn into Darth Jello. Super nice guy...but said some crazy shit (literally "crazy" people shit).

Originally posted by It's xyz!
Ron Paul comes close, but he has crazy ideas like gold or silver fixing the economy.


I believe Ron Paul and I had a 88% match. I do not agree with some of his economic policies, either. I strongly agree with most of his foreign policies.

I think he would have been a better choice than Obama, for sure. He may not have gotten anything done because he would have vetoed the shit out of any bill with earmarks (any fluff would instantly get vetoed, no matter what).

Originally posted by Robtard
It seems like you're just reaching for anything so you can say "Obama sucks!" as much as possible, TBH.

I used to be a big supporter. Not a fan anymore.

Seems like everyone forgot about the Bushes.

Ron Paul would have been much better than what we have

Originally posted by AsbestosFlaygon
Seems like everyone forgot about the Bushes.

Senior was not as bad as Junior. But Senior did the "Obama Breaks important Campaign Promises" thing before Bush did.


So, yeah, I guess we could say Obama is just acting like Bush Sr. Boy, would that piss off the American Libtards. aaahahahaa


Edit - I would definitely amend the US Constitution to allow for 3 presidential terms to get Bill Clinton back in office.


But then I would get it changed back to 2 terms.

Originally posted by Raisen
Ron Paul would have been much better than what we have



I'd rather see hundreds of vetoes that call to our consciousness that bullshit that congress tries to push through (unconstitutional laws, earmarks, etc.) and not get ANYTHING done than have a president that breaks campaign promises that I held dear.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Yes, there are different kinds of *ssholes in this world, contrary to what Team America taught us.

I think Kucinich is the wrong kind of *sshole because he's kind of dumb (as in, not very smart). He is smart enough to get to where he is but not smart enough to do any better than Obama: he would do worse. He also is the classic type of *sshole: arrogant, talks over people, will never change his mind about stuff, and cannot admit he is ever wrong. That's not the type of *sshole you want in the White House.



WTF does this even mean? Remember Darth Jello? Do you remember that guy? Do not turn into Darth Jello. Super nice guy...but said some crazy shit (literally "crazy" people shit).




I believe Ron Paul and I had a 88% match. I do not agree with some of his economic policies, either. I strongly agree with most of his foreign policies.

I think he would have been a better choice than Obama, for sure. He may not have gotten anything done because he would have vetoed the shit out of any bill with earmarks (any fluff would instantly get vetoed, no matter what). Why do you think Kucinich is kind of dumb, as in, not very smart?

Originally posted by It's xyz!
Why do you think Kucinich is kind of dumb, as in, not very smart?

Everything?


Can I say everything and that counts?


There is literally too much stuff to choose from. How about how thick-headed he is? How about how he seems to miss points and talk over people?*

Yeah, classic *sshole traits but none of the good stuff assholes can bring to the table...


*Lawd Jeezus...things have become clear.








Regardless, I love the shit out of that site. I'm going to use the "I Side With" site to help me make my voting decisions from now on. Amazing how it helped me with the local election stuff.

IE no response at all.

Originally posted by Tzeentch
Who do you think would have done a better job?


cain

I recently tried Organic Body Essentials CBD products and was pleasantly surprised. Their CBD oil provided fast understudy repayment for my dread without any noticeable side effects. The flavor was equable and not overpowering. Additionally, their character service was other than, addressing my queries promptly. Comprehensive, I highly endorse Organic Body Essentials CBD after anyone seeking high-quality CBD products.

Originally posted by cbd capsules
literally all my ancestors were sibling-fvckers

We know that, degenerate retard.
Did you know that OP is a phaggot,?

Originally posted by Bashar Teg
We know that, degenerate retard.
Did you know that OP is a phaggot,?

But did they try CBD capsules?

I don't think that cures insest-related developmental disabilities

Originally posted by Bashar Teg
I don't think that cures insest-related developmental disabilities

Imagine living is a shit-hole state where cannabis is illegal, so people resort to homeopathic CBD.

Imagine making a thread like this, and then spending the next decade simping for trump. Yup, OP is a confirmed phaggot. RIP OP

An airman stationed with an intelligence unit in Alaska who was investigated by federal officials in 2022 was found to be involved with online extremist groups. The investigation ultimately led to his arrest on child pornography charges, according to federal documents made public this week.

Jason Gray, then a staff sergeant with the Air Force's 381st Intelligence Squadron at Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson in Alaska, used Discord under the username "LazyAirmen#7460."

He often posted in Discord channels in support of the Boogaloo Boys, an anti-government extremist group with followers who believe a second U.S. civil war is coming.

He was sentenced to 60 months in prison and 25 years supervised release.

This Rightist pedo won't be lonely with so many of his buddies in prison over their part in the Jan 6th insurrection.