I agree that he is a very ineffective president, whether that is his doing or the partisan realities I guess it a bit more unclear (I suppose it's a bit of both). Either way, in words, he is definitely a rather left leaning president, in actions however he's not, definitely less so than Clinton and Carter.
Originally posted by Bardock42
I agree that he is a very ineffective president, whether that is his doing or the partisan realities I guess it a bit more unclear (I suppose it's a bit of both). Either way, in words, he is definitely a rather left leaning president, in actions however he's not, definitely less so than Clinton and Carter.
👆
It's pretty bad that a Mormon who lives in Oklahoma wants a more effectively liberal president.
Originally posted by Bardock42
He wanted to leave troops in Iraq beyond 2011, but he wasn't able to do it.Could you link that again, because I don't think that Obama raised taxes much at all, and the current tax rate is more favourable to the rich than it has been in a long, long time.
He campaigned vigourosly and took credit for the withdrawl and "no boots on the ground in Iraq." Wanted them out and when he's asked it was not my decision. So what you are saying is a campained off a lie that he was gonna pull them out, and then takes credit for it, then when asked why he took them out he says it was not his decision and he wanted to keep" boots on the ground." And now he's putting "boots back on the ground in Iraq."
😆 😆 😆 😆 😆 😆 😆
Originally posted by Time Immemorial
He campaigned vigourosly and took credit for the withdrawl and "no boots on the ground in Iraq." Wanted them out and when he's asked it was not my decision. So what you are saying is a campained off a lie that he was gonna pull them out, and then takes credit for it, then when asked why he took them out he says it was not his decision and he wanted to keep" boots on the ground." And now he's putting "boots back on the ground in Iraq."😆 😆 😆 😆 😆 😆 😆
I'm just stating the fact that Bush ordered the removal of troops from Iraq. How you want to interpret that I don't care. Like I said, I'm not a fan of Obama.
Originally posted by Bardock42
I think he's probably better than Bush, but not great by any means.
What has he done that makes him better then Bush. What did Bush do so bad, and please don't say he got US into Iraq. Both sides, including Nancy Pelosi in the House and Harry Reid in Senate supported and funded the war.
(Clinton>Bush Sr.)>W Bush> Obama is how I see it.
Every President has the potential to be the best President to ever live. Obama could have, he really could have, I believed in him. But he let me down.
I feel also let down by the promise of Obama's campaigns. He talks an incredibly good talk...
Bush's foreign policy was pretty bad, but Obama's is not actually much better. But I'd blame Bush's presidency for kicking off the excessive military intervention as well as the dismantling of civil rights with things like the patriot act. Additionally I believe his tax policy has put the US directly into the shitty debt situation it has now, Obama didn't help it much, but he was also settled with a global economic crisis.
Reagan and Clinton were fcking warriors with the economy and the country. Sadly we will never see people like that again. No one from the pools on either sides have brewed us anything close to that. Look at who we have to chose from now, Hillary and Mitt. It's pathetic that we don't have real spine anymore from the parties to give us good candidates, but I think that is what they want, spineless empty suits who they can use to sign the checks and veto when then need em.
Under Reagan there were several economic boons for Americans. Inflation fell, unemployment fell, interest rates fell, and free trade skyrocketed.
But all at the cost of the Federal Deficit growing faster in his 8 years than in the previous 70-80 years. It was at around 900billion in 1980 and ended up at 2.8trillion in 1988. Why Reagan had to then raise taxes (after cutting them) several times to try and compensate. America/Americans are still suffering from that today.
Clinton happened to preside over the Dot-Com Bubble.
Originally posted by Robtard
Clinton happened to preside over the Dot-Com Bubble.
You do know that Clinton came into office during a recession, right?
Here's what a view is an unbiased recap of stuff that happened under Clinton (because he is definitely not bashful about criticizing Clinton where appropriate):
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/09/05/the-clinton-economy-in-charts/
Basically, if Bill Clinton could run for president, again, I'd totes vote for him. He readily admits to some of the mistakes he made as president (not talking about the BJs) so the mistakes he did make, which were few and far between, would be accounted for in a new term.
I know...I know...this is how you get a Putin. I just don't see Ron Paul making to to the Oval Office nor do I see any of the candidates I would like, ending up in the oval office.
Hell, if Ron Paul runs again and wins, just 4 years under Ron Paul would be hilarious as far as the budget is concerned. 🙂
I'm assuming you thought I was calling Clinton shitty? I wasn't. Just pointed out that his presidency happened to preside during the Dot-Com Bubble, which would have helped just about any President in looking great financially.
But there's that Fannie May thing that took root under his Presidency.
Or as some put it: http://www.businessinsider.com/how-bill-clintons-balanced-budget-destroyed-the-economy-2012-9
Originally posted by dadudemon
You do know that Clinton came into office during a recession, right?Here's what a view is an unbiased recap of stuff that happened under Clinton (because he is definitely not bashful about criticizing Clinton where appropriate):
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/09/05/the-clinton-economy-in-charts/
Basically, if Bill Clinton could run for president, again, I'd totes vote for him. He readily admits to some of the mistakes he made as president (not talking about the BJs) so the mistakes he did make, which were few and far between, would be accounted for in a new term.
I know...I know...this is how you get a Putin. I just don't see Ron Paul making to to the Oval Office nor do I see any of the candidates I would like, ending up in the oval office.
Hell, if Ron Paul runs again and wins, just 4 years under Ron Paul would be hilarious as far as the budget is concerned. 🙂
Ron Paul is good but he is getting old and never has that wow factor, he has great idea's that I wish would come to light, however he never gets the nomination.
"Forty years ago, many Americans celebrated the demise of the imperial presidency with the resignation of Richard Nixon. Today, it is clear they celebrated too soon. Nixon's view of presidential powers, summed up in his infamous statement that, "when the president does it that means it is not illegal," is embraced by the majority of the political class. In fact, the last two presidents have abused their power in ways that would have made Nixon blush.
For example, Nixon's abuse of the Internal Revenue Service to persecute his political opponents was the subject of one of the articles of impeachment passed by the U.S. House of Representatives. As bad as Nixon's abuse of the IRS was, he was hardly the first president to use the IRS this way, and the present administration seems to be continuing this tradition. The targeting of Tea Party groups has received the most attention, but it is not the only instance of the IRS harassing President Barack Obama's political opponents. For example, the IRS has demanded that one of my organizations, Campaign for Liberty, hand over information regarding its major donors.
Nixon's abuse of federal power to spy on his "enemies" was abhorrent, but Nixon's abuses of civil liberties pale in comparison to those of his successors. Today, literally anyone in the world can be spied on, indefinitely detained, or placed on a presidential "kill list" based on nothing more than a presidential order. For all his faults, Nixon never tried to claim the power to unilaterally order anyone in the world detained or killed.
Many today act as apologists for the imperial presidency. One reason for this is that many politicians place partisan concerns above loyalty to the Constitution. Thus, they openly defend, and even celebrate, executive branch power grabs when made by a president of their own party.
Another reason is the bipartisan consensus in support of the warfare state. Many politicians and intellectuals in both parties support an imperial presidency because they recognize that the Founders' vision of a limited executive branch is incompatible with an aggressive foreign policy. When Republicans are in power "neoconservatives" take the lead, while when Democrats are in power "humanitarian interventionists" take the lead. Regardless of party or ideological label, they share the same goal — to protect the executive branch from being constrained by the constitutional requirement that the president seek congressional approval before waging war.
The strength of the bipartisan consensus that the president should have limitless discretion in committing troops to war is illustrated by the failure of an attempt to add an article dealing with Nixon's "secret bombing" of Cambodia to the articles of impeachment. Even at the low point of support for the imperial presidency, Congress still refused to rein in the president's war-making powers.
The failure to include the Cambodia invasion in the articles of impeachment may well be the main reason Watergate had little to do with reining in the imperial presidency. Because the imperial presidency is rooted in the war power, attempts to rein in the imperial presidency that do not work to restore Congress' constitutional authority to declare war are doomed to fail.
Repealing Nixon's legacy requires building a new bipartisan coalition in favor of peace and civil liberties, rejecting what writer Gene Healy calls "the cult of the presidency," and placing loyalty to the Constitution above partisanship. An important step must be restoring congressional supremacy in matters of war and peace."
© 2014 Ron Paul
http://www.baxterbulletin.com/story/opinion/2014/09/10/ron-paul-imperial-presidency-grown-since-nixon/15420183/
when it comes to foreign policy i don't know who's worse tbh. bush approached the iraq war in the wrong way but i think its a good thing that saddam is neutralized overall so i give him points for that. then i deduct those same points because he missed the opportunity to negotiate with iran on some 'we don't negotiate with bad guys' shit. could have possibly averted the current situation and just tossed that opportunity to the wind.
then again obama has made us look weak again and again and again. he drew a red line in syria and then did nothing about it when it was crossed. he was wise enough not to make the same mistake with russia but then he still got punked because his allies are hurting more from the counter-sanctions than russia is from the sanctions that are supposed to be a punishment for putin marching into crimea and annexing that shit 3rd reich style.
Originally posted by red g jacks
then again obama has made us look weak again and again and again. he drew a red line in syria and then did nothing about it when it was crossed. he was wise enough not to make the same mistake with russia but then he still got punked because his allies are hurting more from the counter-sanctions than russia is from the sanctions that are supposed to be a punishment for putin marching into crimea and annexing that shit 3rd reich style.
He drew the red line in syria did nothing, now arming and training syrians which will just arm and train our enemies because the syrians are not our friends.
He apologized over and over for American foreign policy, one of his biggest apathy speeches was in none other then Germany where he cried about how bad America was and apologized for us. Who gave him the right to apologize for America? He has let Russia punk him over and over and Putin laughs in his face. Begazzi was a total sham. He has absolute zero know how's on how to deal in foreign relations issues, war or the economy. What does he know how to do well here, play golf?