Originally posted by Bardock42
Well, the Ayathollah can say many things, it's really more the young Iranians we need to get on the side of the west.
I will acknowledge that the deal is ok but potentially terrible if you acknowledge the possibility that the ayatollah and his religious followers gaining traction and leadership.
Originally posted by psmith81992
I will acknowledge that the deal is ok but potentially terrible if you acknowledge the possibility that the ayatollah and his religious followers gaining traction and leadership.
It puts us in no worse position than if the deal wasn't there, it still gives us additional intel and them less centrifuges and uranium stockpiles.
Originally posted by psmith81992
And you're blaming every negative Obama statistic on the crisis while crediting everything else he did.
One, the specific numbers you point out were largely caused by the crisis, as evidenced by most of them already being on the rise before he even took office.
Two, I am then pointing out what Obama did that affected those numbers, usually pointing them in a good direction (with exception of the ones I have acknowledged as not going in a good direction, something you keep on ignoring. Stuff like the debt, which went up but I'm ok with because it was in exchange for jobs and thus a reasonable long-term strategy), and what others in the same situation have done and how it affected the numbers in their cases.
Look, you are not actually linking the bad numbers to Obama, you're playing semantic games to try and paint him as doing the opposite of what he did, and/or outright stating falsehoods. For the third or fourth time, you said he made things worse for the first five years. I then asked you to back that up- you then accused.
Your refusal to actually explain what, specifically, he did wrong rather than wave your hands and grunt negatively says to me you know full well he is responsible for helping, not hurting, unemployment and economic numbers,
Messing around with words is not an argument. Being vague and not supporting your points is not an argument. When someone points out to you specifically why X happened with heavy evidence, grumbling about how it's still some other person's fault somehow and that we're not giving proper blame to that person is a really crappy argument.
You are just blaming him for the crisis here. You aren't using those words, but 'These numbers are bad, must be Obama's fault' when the numbers were, one, going in that direction before him, and two, he was visibly doing something to turn those numbers around and that something succeeded.
This is just disingenuous wordplay on your part.
I was never arguing that Obama was a better president than Bush. I have said that statement repeatedly.
I assume you mean 'wasn't' there, I don't see why anyone would think you were arguing Obama was better when you keep accusing him of being the reason unemployment and economic numbers were bad even when the biggest world-wide economic crash since the great depression had started just before he took office.
Obama's biggest failure may end up being the Iran deal.
Seems rather difficult for that to be the case, because it's designed to help out even if Iran breaks it, and it's something the Republicans heavily pursued during their term as well.
Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Name one foreign policy Obama has succeeded because he sunk Syria.
The Iran nuclear deal, something that Bush wanted but was unable to get.
Improving relations with, oh, most of the world compared to the Bush years (he improved ratings with Africa, Europe, etc.).
Killed Bin Laden.
Granted, Syria was not a success, mainly in that he didn't act there. He wanted to it seemed, but the public pressure was against him. So yea, minus point there.
Originally posted by psmith81992
I will acknowledge that the deal is ok but potentially terrible if you acknowledge the possibility that the ayatollah and his religious followers gaining traction and leadership.
Originally posted by Omega Vision
I'm not sure how much traction they have to gain...they basically run the country already.
Ok so then the Iran deal isn't a good one.
The Iran nuclear deal, something that Bush wanted but was unable to get.
Improving relations with, oh, most of the world compared to the Bush years (he improved ratings with Africa, Europe, etc.).
Originally posted by psmith81992
Ok so then the Iran deal isn't a good one.
Who said that? Just because George W. Bush did it doesn't mean it's bad at all.
Remember, I'm also the one who thinks Bush's support of the TARP is awesome, I don't blame the economic crash on GWB (it happened on his watch, but it's origin is much older and no-one was moving to head it off, and he acted properly when it happened. It not being his fault just doesn't make it Barack's either), and say Trump has some points I agree on with economics. Don't project your 'you always blame Bush/etc.' stuff onto me.
Simply making a deal with Iran doesn't constitute a success.
It is when it's designed so that it helps us whether or not they follow it, and it's something both parties have pursued for years, and it's a multi-national deal where all the other nuclear powers support it, and one of the biggest sources of opposition are Iran's hardcore US-haters.
He also made relations worse with other countries, so "most of the world" is biased hyperbole.
The only countries our relations have gotten worse with, are ones who've taken actions that have soured much of the world community, like Russia's move on the Ukraine.
On average, our world wide approval rating is much higher. Heck, aside from Russia, I'm hard pressed to think of any where our rating went down.
And since you're in the thread again-
To continue what I was saying to you before about numbers, I showed you numbers of the economy that were shifting in positive directions around when his policies took effect, and never stopped going in that direction. The numbers that didn't shift good, are either the ones that came as direct cost of moving the other numbers (i.e. the direct monetary to improve other numbers raises debt, or in other words acceptable cost in my book), or comes as a result of the bad numbers being high in the first place, and are still moving in the right direction, but are just lagged or moving too slowly, and no attempt has been made to tie these numbers to his policies directly, just noting they were high during his turn, which, well, duh, that's why he spent so much effort fighting the bad numbers and tried to do more.
Let me tell you about an experience I had at another forum. There was a poster there who's general stance was, "Well, I'm on the fence between the Democrat and Republican, but this time I'll go with the Republican."
"Eh, I'll give credit for Obama doing the recovery when it reaches 9%."
"8%".
"7%".
Then he stopped giving specific unemployment number deadlines, but still insisted Obama was doing horrible on the economy period, that he would've given credit if Obama had just done *better*, and we should've gone with Republican austerity, wouldn't explain why when confronted with numbers, and also insisted he was just giving credit/blame where it was due.
Eventually everyone on the board realized he was just as fanatical and unwilling to change as the board's Times/Star equivalents, he just more dishonest about it and would always-always-always blame Obama even if he'd phrase it as if he was a moderate when he was not, ask people into making long responses, ignore the responses and the next time the topics came up act totally ignorant as to what these 'numbers that disagreed with his conclusion' were, ask people to post 'em again, and eventually gained a reputation as the most worthless to actually try and debate person on the board with everyone regardless of side.
So, I may have some bleed-over from that, but suffice to say, I don't have overly much patience for "I give credit to both sides where it's due, but only actually take one side in practice."
Especially when you don't back up any of your assertions that Obama didn't help for the first five years, and Obama has outdone the 2012 Republican candidate's pie-in-the-sky promises they had made for achieving by 2016.
It is when it's designed so that it helps us whether or not they follow it, and it's something both parties have pursued for years, and it's a multi-national deal where all the other nuclear powers support it, and one of the biggest sources of opposition are Iran's hardcore US-haters.
Then he stopped giving specific unemployment number deadlines, but still insisted Obama was doing horrible on the economy period, that he would've given credit if Obama had just done *better*, and we should've gone with Republican austerity, wouldn't explain why when confronted with numbers, and also insisted he was just giving credit/blame where it was due.Eventually everyone on the board realized he was just as fanatical and unwilling to change as the board's Times/Star equivalents, he just more dishonest about it and would always-always-always blame Obama even if he'd phrase it as if he was a moderate when he was not, ask people into making long responses, ignore the responses and the next time the topics came up act totally ignorant as to what these 'numbers that disagreed with his conclusion' were, ask people to post 'em again, and eventually gained a reputation as the most worthless to actually try and debate person on the board with everyone regardless of side.
Especially when you don't back up any of your assertions that Obama didn't help for the first five years, and Obama has outdone the 2012 Republican candidate's pie-in-the-sky promises they had made for achieving by 2016.