Why do you hate Obama?

[Keronika]

I don't hate Obama, but I am extremely disappointed in him. He promised transparency in government, but he's just as shady as Bush.

[The New Sea Territory]

He's a politician.

[The New Sea Territory]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Bolshevism

National Bolshevism is not Bolshevist, or Leninist. It's Third Positionist.

Thus, not socialist.

[New Jordslag]

Right. As have the Nordic Countries. Look at how well they are doing. Something wrong with Universal Health Care?

No. I'm stating that he's introducing a socialist policy in a capitalist country.

That's National Bolshevism. Contrary to popular belief, Nationalism and Nazism aren't the same thing. It is impossible to combine Nazism and Stalinism.

I'm lenient towards both ideologies- I've only been exploring politics for about a year now, so I have no official standing on Communism or Nazism as of now.

It's nothing personal, I hate all liberals.

Dad?

America isn't so much Capitalist as highly confused as to what it is.

Your Politics spoiler says otherwise. It says you Nazism, Fascism, Stalinism, National Bolshevism, Authoritarianism, and that you deny the Holocaust.

Need I go on? You seem to already have a placed standing.

[Seaxeland]

It's nothing personal, I hate all liberals.

Implying Obama is a liberal to begin with.

That's cute.

[Patridam]

Literally everyone has picked the arguments against him that are either very easy to contest, general opinions, or from trolls/jokesters. Most of the legit arguments have gone unaddressed. Like, nobody has ever looked at mine:

As to totally practical reasons:
-He hasn't really done anything at all to address the deficit
-He's made a total mess of instituting public healthcare (I agree we need it, but Obamacare is rather a backwards, inefficient, and frankly broken way of achieving it)
-He has had very sub-par foreign policy
-He draws a very hard line with what he wants passed - no compromises, my way or the highway - and then blames republicans for obstructionism. Okay, yeah, they're keeping things from happening by not bending to his will, but he's not bending to theirs at all. If he offered legitimate middleground solutions and then the right refused, he would have some ground to stand on. But he's just as stubborn as the opposition.

For a somewhat less practical reason, it always feels to be whatever he does he tries to do for 'monument value'. Like, whenever he makes a decision, it's not solely for the good of the American people, it's partly so he ends up in history books. Yet I very much imagine history books in the future will simply address him as 'The first black president' the same way they address William Henry Harrison as 'The president who died after 31 days in office' .

]So the 'you can only marry a white person' law is totally cool, then?

Well, it wouldn't affect me personally so I can't speak to 'outrage' properly.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Implying Obama is a liberal to begin with.

That's cute.

It really is, isn't it? Why, I think I almost had a fatherly impulse going on in my black heart, only to be shoved back in its place and remind myself that I was dealing with someone who just enjoys shitposting.

[Nuwe Suid Afrika]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Bolshevism

National Bolshevism is not Bolshevist, or Leninist. It's Third Positionist.

Thus, not socialist.

I never stated that it was Leninist or socialist.

America isn't so much Capitalist as highly confused as to what it is.

Your Politics spoiler says otherwise. It says you Nazism, Fascism, Stalinism, National Bolshevism, Authoritarianism, and that you deny the Holocaust.

Need I go on? You seem to already have a placed standing.

I don't see your point, but I could certainly trim it up.

(Let's try to get back on topic, we're derailing a bit. If needed, TG me.)

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Literally everyone has picked the arguments against him that are either very easy to contest, general opinions, or from trolls/jokesters. Most of the legit arguments have gone unaddressed. Like, nobody has ever looked at mine:

As to totally practical reasons:
-He hasn't really done anything at all to address the deficit
-He's made a total mess of instituting public healthcare (I agree we need it, but Obamacare is rather a backwards, inefficient, and frankly broken way of achieving it)
-He has had very sub-par foreign policy
-He draws a very hard line with what he wants passed - no compromises, my way or the highway - and then blames republicans for obstructionism. Okay, yeah, they're keeping things from happening by not bending to his will, but he's not bending to theirs at all. If he offered legitimate middleground solutions and then the right refused, he would have some ground to stand on. But he's just as stubborn as the opposition.

For a somewhat less practical reason, it always feels to be whatever he does he tries to do for 'monument value'. Like, whenever he makes a decision, it's not solely for the good of the American people, it's partly so he ends up in history books. Yet I very much imagine history books in the future will simply address him as 'The first black president' the same way they address William Henry Harrison as 'The president who died after 31 days in office' .

]So the 'you can only marry a white person' law is totally cool, then?

Well, it wouldn't affect me personally so I can't speak to 'outrage' properly.

- The deficit, you mean annual or the debt? There's two different discussion to be had. Deficit implies the annual deficit budget and the debt is just the debt in general.

- Healthcare is not so much his fault as much as congress gutting out the idea and giving us a skeleton of what could have been.

- How is his Foreign Policy deficient?

- To be fair, his ideas are not bad, but he should be more giving for things Republicans might want in the long term, too.

Also, I've noticed the whole "monumental value" thing, and while it is something that he needed to reign down a bit back, it's not like he doesn't have the right intentions. It's just the fact that he is too far ahead of his generation in terms of what he wants done.

[The New Sea Territory]

National Bolshevism is not Bolshevist, or Leninist. It's Third Positionist.

Thus, not socialist.

I never stated that it was Leninist or socialist.

The post said Nazism and Stalinism couldn't be mixed, you responded National Bolshevism. Stalinism is a form of socialism (of course, a stupid one).

[The New Sea Territory]

Implying Obama is a liberal to begin with.

That's cute.

He is a liberal, but a very bad example of liberals.

[Patridam]

It's nothing personal, I hate all liberals.

Implying Obama is a liberal to begin with.

By American standards, yes. Believe it or not, the whole world does not use European standards.

He has been both a 'fiscal liberal', seeking (and somewhat succeeding) to expand government expenditure and raise taxes; and a (less sucessful) social liberal, seeking greater personal freedoms/less 'moral enforcement' (gay marriage, immigrant rights, etc.) for the people.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Implying Obama is a liberal to begin with.

By Modern American standards, yes. Believe it or not, the whole world does not use European standards.

He has been both a 'fiscal liberal', seeking (and somewhat succeeding) to expand government expenditure and raise taxes; and a (less sucessful) social liberal, seeking greater personal freedoms/less 'moral enforcement' (gay marriage, immigrant rights, etc.) for the people.

Fixed that for you.

I dunno, but historically he doesn't seem much of a liberal, to me at least. Then again nowadays most of the people who were the Old Right and even up to Reagan's generation would be seen as liberal by the current Conservative bloc.

[United Russian Soviet States]

I don't hate Obama. It is a sin to hate anyone. I dislike him though.

[Patridam]

Fixed that for you.

I dunno, but historically he doesn't seem much of a liberal, to me at least. Then again nowadays most of the people who were the Old Right and even up to Reagan's generation would be seen as liberal by the current Conservative bloc.

Well, definitions and politics change a lot over the years.

I think he would definitely have been considered at least 'socially liberal' in the 50s-80s (the era where homosexual and pedophile were rarley distinguished from one another, after all).

Fiscally, you have to look at the US definition over the classical/European definition (encyclopedia Britannica):

In the United States, liberalism is associated with the welfare-state policies of the New Deal program of the Democratic administration of Pres. Franklin D. Roosevelt, whereas in Europe it is more commonly associated with a commitment to limited government and laissez-faire economic policies."

In that way, I would definitely say Obama follows that definition and Reagan/old right do not. In the classical definition, I would say that Obama definitely doesn't, and even Reagan is pushing it to be called such (he did expand government quite a bit, at least militarily).

[The United Territories of Providence]

Literally everyone has picked the arguments against him that are either very easy to contest, general opinions, or from trolls/jokesters. Most of the legit arguments have gone unaddressed. Like, nobody has ever looked at mine:

As to totally practical reasons:
-He hasn't really done anything at all to address the deficit
-He's made a total mess of instituting public healthcare (I agree we need it, but Obamacare is rather a backwards, inefficient, and frankly broken way of achieving it)
-He has had very sub-par foreign policy
-He draws a very hard line with what he wants passed - no compromises, my way or the highway - and then blames republicans for obstructionism. Okay, yeah, they're keeping things from happening by not bending to his will, but he's not bending to theirs at all. If he offered legitimate middleground solutions and then the right refused, he would have some ground to stand on. But he's just as stubborn as the opposition.

For a somewhat less practical reason, it always feels to be whatever he does he tries to do for 'monument value'. Like, whenever he makes a decision, it's not solely for the good of the American people, it's partly so he ends up in history books. Yet I very much imagine history books in the future will simply address him as 'The first black president' the same way they address William Henry Harrison as 'The president who died after 31 days in office' .

]So the 'you can only marry a white person' law is totally cool, then?

Well, it wouldn't affect me personally so I can't speak to 'outrage' properly.

1. The Deficit has been drastically reduced in the last 6 years.
2. America isn't ready, and frankly can't afford nationalized healthcare. More liberal alternatives would bankrupt, and the conservatives HAVE NO alternative. What we had didn't work, but I'd argue that 10 million more Americans with affordable insurance is better than 10 million without.
3.But what about it is sub-par....that's a very vague thing to say. That's not so much a criticism as much as a generalization.
4. He compromises with my party so often It's hard to call him a democrat. It's not even compromise, it's more like he gives in really often, If Obama stood up for his principles more often and used the veto pen more, we might have actually seen some progressiveness. But we haven't, because he's lazy. He had the congress for 2 years, and they achieved some big things, but in comparison to Bush's first 2 years or Clinton's first two years....not much. In fact, the top critique Americans have of the GOP is our unwillingness to compromise. As for the Democratic Party, it goes Spends too much, Not accountable, Poor Leadership, and Compromise too easily. The GOP has acted as obstructionist, but that's just the nature of politics. Look at 2006 with the Democrats or 1994 with the GOP.... the opposition party when they're the majority...don't like the president.

I think legitimate criticism exists, I have my own, but I don't think you've listed any....

[Patridam]

1. The Deficit has been drastically reduced in the last 6 years.

It's still there, and it's still huge, and the amount we're paying in interest on our debt is growing all the time. Also, the budgeted deficit for 2015 is up again from 2014.

2. America isn't ready, and frankly can't afford nationalized healthcare. More liberal alternatives would bankrupt, and the conservatives HAVE NO alternative. What we had didn't work, but I'd argue that 10 million more Americans with affordable insurance is better than 10 million without.

As someone who personally had to deal with the website bs, I really preferred no healthcare to a mandatory 100 bill each month for a policy that covers absolutely diddly squat.

3.But what about it is sub-par....that's a very vague thing to say. That's not so much a criticism as much as a generalization.

Okay, how about all our aid to Israel, all the help we've given to Africa, all the drone-bombed schools in the middle east?

4. He compromises with my party so often It's hard to call him a democrat. It's not even compromise, it's more like he gives in really often, If Obama stood up for his principles more often and used the veto pen more, we might have actually seen some progressiveness. But we haven't, because he's lazy. He had the congress for 2 years, and they achieved some big things, but in comparison to Bush's first 2 years or Clinton's first two years....not much. In fact, the top critique Americans have of the GOP is our unwillingness to compromise. As for the Democratic Party, it goes Spends too much, Not accountable, Poor Leadership, and Compromise too easily.

He doesn't give in, he just gives up on actually getting something done if he can't get it done his way. Most of the things he planned, promised even, never came anywhere close to fruition.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

He's too liberal and he favors the immigrants too much.


Generally sums up everything, other than the latter of the options.

Liberal in what way?

He's deported more illegal immigrants than any president in U.S. history.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

1. The Deficit has been drastically reduced in the last 6 years.

It's still there, and it's still huge, and the amount we're paying in interest on our debt is growing all the time. Also, the budgeted deficit for 2015 is up again from 2014.

2. America isn't ready, and frankly can't afford nationalized healthcare. More liberal alternatives would bankrupt, and the conservatives HAVE NO alternative. What we had didn't work, but I'd argue that 10 million more Americans with affordable insurance is better than 10 million without.

As someone who personally had to deal with the website bs, I really preferred no healthcare to a mandatory 100 bill each month for a policy that covers absolutely diddly squat.

3.But what about it is sub-par....that's a very vague thing to say. That's not so much a criticism as much as a generalization.

Okay, how about all our aid to Israel, all the help we've given to Africa, all the drone-bombed schools in the middle east?

4. He compromises with my party so often It's hard to call him a democrat. It's not even compromise, it's more like he gives in really often, If Obama stood up for his principles more often and used the veto pen more, we might have actually seen some progressiveness. But we haven't, because he's lazy. He had the congress for 2 years, and they achieved some big things, but in comparison to Bush's first 2 years or Clinton's first two years....not much. In fact, the top critique Americans have of the GOP is our unwillingness to compromise. As for the Democratic Party, it goes Spends too much, Not accountable, Poor Leadership, and Compromise too easily.

He doesn't give in, he just gives up on actually getting something done if he can't get it done his way. Most of the things he planned, promised even, never came anywhere close to fruition.

Our aid to Israel is always going to be there basically.

They're our gateway to the Middle East so we keep them as our interest base, which is why we keep giving them money. That and because religious people fawn over Israel.

[Otulia]

I don't necessarily hate Obama, but I feel he's been too pussy-footed and not as assertive a President as he could be. As a socialist, I also feel he's too centrist and cautious about pushing forward important policies, like the ACA. Of course, FoxNews & Co. would say he was bad if he agreed with everything the Republicans wanted, so...

[Patridam]

Liberal in what way?

Liberal (US definition) in the fiscal sense - fairly flagrant spending and increasing the government role; and liberal in the social sense - decreasing moral enforcement in favor of greater personal freedoms.

[United Russian Soviet States]

I don't necessarily hate Obama, but I feel he's been too pussy-footed and not as assertive a President as he could be. As a socialist, I also feel he's too centrist and cautious about pushing forward important policies, like the ACA. Of course, FoxNews & Co. would say he was bad if he agreed with everything the Republicans wanted, so...

This is the first time I have seen a socialist criticize the ACA.

[Patridam]

I don't necessarily hate Obama, but I feel he's been too pussy-footed and not as assertive a President as he could be. As a socialist, I also feel he's too centrist and cautious about pushing forward important policies, like the ACA. Of course, FoxNews & Co. would say he was bad if he agreed with everything the Republicans wanted, so...

NBC would still support him even if he suddenly agreed with everything the republicans wanted, so the media's really party-based moreso than action based.

[New Werpland]

Implying Obama is a liberal to begin with.

That's cute.

Obama is more Communitarian than Liberal.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

Literally everyone has picked the arguments against him that are either very easy to contest, general opinions, or from trolls/jokesters. Most of the legit arguments have gone unaddressed. Like, nobody has ever looked at mine:

As to totally practical reasons:
-He hasn't really done anything at all to address the deficit

Except cut it by half.

-He's made a total mess of instituting public healthcare (I agree we need it, but Obamacare is rather a backwards, inefficient, and frankly broken way of achieving it)

What, exactly, do you think had a chance of passing that would have been a superior approach?

-He has had very sub-par foreign policy

Details?

-He draws a very hard line with what he wants passed - no compromises, my way or the highway - and then blames republicans for obstructionism. Okay, yeah, they're keeping things from happening by not bending to his will, but he's not bending to theirs at all. If he offered legitimate middleground solutions and then the right refused, he would have some ground to stand on. But he's just as stubborn as the opposition.

He's compromised plenty. It's interesting that you fault him for passing the compromise of Obamacare instead of something more effective, then turn around and blame him for not compromising. You can't have it both ways.

For a somewhat less practical reason, it always feels to be whatever he does he tries to do for 'monument value'. Like, whenever he makes a decision, it's not solely for the good of the American people, it's partly so he ends up in history books. Yet I very much imagine history books in the future will simply address him as 'The first black president' the same way they address William Henry Harrison as 'The president who died after 31 days in office' .

So he's not making major enough changes, but he makes changes with an eye towards history?