Is Obama all that different from other Presidents?

[syncrolecyne]

@kenetic

Bush at least proposed some sort of amnesty or guest worker program at some point, but when his supporters got all huffy at the idea that they may have to stop treating a bunch of brown-skinned criminals as 2nd class citizens he dropped it.

AFAIK Obama’s never tackled the immigration issue, but it’s pretty hard to say who’s more “right” or “left”, much less actually defining what it means to be “right” or “left” on immigration in the first place.

If anything, Obama’s administration has been a little tougher - in response to political pressure, than Bush or Clinton.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07/25/AR2010072501790.html

Conservatives have undergone something of a shift on immigration, in that the pro-business wing has tended to favor lighter regulations, and the socio-cultural conservatives tend to call for a more closed border. The latter view is virtually the only one heard on the right now.

[HumanBear]

@BrainGlutton

His politics are hardly different from Clinton’s. The Pubs hated Clinton. It was quite astonishing to watch, at the time. It strained belief. But that’s nothing next to how they hate Obama.

I’ve heard many people say how much Clinton was vilified by the Republicans, but as an outsider it was way less obvious to me than it is now for Obama. In everyone’s opinion, is Obama being treated worse than Clinton? Worse than any other past president? And if he is, is it due to his skin colour, or would Hilary (who was treated pretty badly herself) is she had won have been treated the same?

Is there anyone here who can justify the seeming hatred for Obama that many people seem to have? There was a lot of hatred for Bush, was that justified in comparison in your opinion?

I suspect most non US citizens would prefer Obama to Bush, but that is just a guess on my part.

[HumanBear]

@syncrolecyne

If anything, Obama’s administration has been a little tougher - in response to political pressure, than Bush or Clinton.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07/25/AR2010072501790.html

Conservatives have undergone something of a shift on immigration, in that the pro-business wing has tended to favor lighter regulations, and the socio-cultural conservatives tend to call for a more closed border. The latter view is virtually the only one heard on the right now.

That’s something I’ve found interesting in my watching of US politics. Often the Democrats pass things that seem to be Republican issues, for example Clinton, and forgive me but I forget all the details, cut large chunks out of social security.

[marshmallow]

Obama is half black, so that’s different. Otherwise he’s a typical Democrat in that he’s pro-corporate, pro-torture, pro-war, pro-surveillance, anti-drug, and anti (or indifferent to)-gay marriage. Anyone who wasn’t this wouldn’t have even made it on the Dem ticket.

[John_Mace]

As far as gay marriage goes, I have no doubt that as soon as he is re-elected, his views will “evolve” such that he will endorse it.

[furt]

@HumanBear

I don’t feel any waves of evil from his administration,

Me neither.

and while I understand that the Republicans would like different things I don’t understand the demonization of Obama at all.

In what ways has he been demonized that Clinton, Bush, Reagan, etc. were not?

Cable news and the internet are new, but vitriolic attacks on our chief executives are very old. Reagan was pretty routinely described as stupid and/or evil. Indeed, if you go back 200 years, you see much more vicious stuff than we have now; if anything, frankly, it’s gotten more civil.

[HumanBear]

@Mighty_Mouse

When I am in Europe (UK, France, Italy most recently), I find that the most prominent reason that people think I am a right winger is that I don’t hate the US and all its policies. It seems like one of the guiding principles of the left in Europe is at least suspicion if not outright hatred of America. They seem to be quite puzzled that I can be a proud liberal, and a patriotic American at the same time.

For Canadians, the idea that I am not (literally) burning cars and bombing government buildings because we do not have UHC in the US seems to indicate that I must be a right wing nut.

So I have rather given up on paying any attention to European or (to a lesser extent) Canadian views of internal US politics.

Well I know what you’re saying, but maybe listening and trying to understand why outsiders think the way you do would make you (and feel free to substitute ‘your country’ for you) a better person. Not to say that all foreigners are right, but there must be a reason why they think the way they do, and it’s not jealousy of the most free-est ™ country in the world.

When I say negative things about the good old US of A, I may sometimes seem overly critical, and of course America is a great place with many fine things, and lots of freedom, equality and general all round goodness, but my problem is I have higher expectations for America than I do for pretty much every other country in the World, and for the past 10 years or so those expectations have not been met. Add to this that many people refuse to admit there are problems, or seem to point to the wrong problems in the first place and I, and I suspect many other outsiders, find it hard not to wonder why many Americans feel quite so patriotic at the moment. Most British people are very wary of patriotism, we tend to think scepticism leads to better things.

[Qin_Shi_Huangdi]

@Der_Trihs

The polls showed a majority of the population was in favor of some kind of single payer/public option plan. The Democrats were sufficiently right wing that many of them defied their constituents in order to pass the corporate giveaway we got instead. Probably not coincidentally, many lost the next election - but they protected us from the Terrible Evil of health care at least. The Democrats are so right wing that many are willing to sacrifice their careers rather than throw the left or even the middle a bone.

Most of those Congressmen lost to Republicans not more liberal Democrats.

@marshmallow

Obama is half black, so that’s different. Otherwise he’s a typical Democrat in that he’s pro-corporate, pro-torture, pro-war, pro-surveillance, anti-drug, and anti (or indifferent to)-gay marriage. Anyone who wasn’t this wouldn’t have even made it on the Dem ticket.

I can’t see why any politican should be opposed to the Afghan War (not the Iraq War) or against reasonable security measures.

[Susanann]

@Profound_Gibberish

Obama is black, and that brings out the latent racism in all of us, and absolutely frightens the active racists out there. Half of the crap that is piled on him now would not be there if he were white.

–PG: Middle Class, Middle-Aged White Male

Uhhhh, sorry, but FYI, obama is, at least, half white. I myself subjectively consider obama more white than black, since I know so much more about his white mother Stanley, and since I can identify so much more with Stanley. Moreover, obama’s personal history, what little we know of it, has more similarities with white folk.

[Marley23]

It’s possible that some trends have reached their apex under Obama, like the expansion of government and spending and military interventions. (Of course they could also keep going in the direction they’ve been going.) In those cases it’s still the continuation of trends that existed long before he was on the scene. Despite the hysteria you sometimes hear, he’s well within the spectrum of U.S. politics and of U.S. presidents. He’s not a radical, and he’s done a lot of things the far left is not happy about.

[Susanann]

@BrainGlutton

In Obama’s case, of course, it means he is not an African-American in the usual sense of the phrase, that is, not a descendant of American slaves and not raised by or among such.

Obama ancestors owned slaves, a researcher finds

*1850 Census records from Kentucky that one of Obama’s great-great-great-great grandfathers, George Washington Overall, owned a 15-year-old girl and a 25-year-old man.

The same records show that one of Obama’s great-great-great-great-great-grandmothers, Mary Duvall, also owned two black slaves.
*

Boston.com: Local breaking news, sports, weather, and things to do

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/bal-te.obama02mar02,0,5765826.story

All About the Ancestry of Barack Obama

http://scaredmonkeys.net/index.php?topic=3120.0

[Shodan]

The apex reached under Obama is the deficit, and there he is off the map.

And this notion that he is hated more than Bush was hated is more than mildly ridiculous for anyone who has been a member her for longer than three years. The excuse that Obama is hated because he is black is just that, an excuse, and an attempt to put him above criticism.

Regards,
Shodan

[Susanann]

@Marley23

It’s possible that some trends have reached their apex under Obama, like the expansion of government and spending and military interventions. .

Objectively, that would then make him the worst president in U.S. history.

[Marley23]

@Susanann

Objectively, that would then make him the worst president in U.S. history.

I don’t think you know what “objectively” means, because this does not objectively prove anything. For starters one would have to make the subjective judgment that the things I mentioned are bad, and the subjective judgment that they’re more important than other issues. One might do that, but saying they objectively prove anything is absurd.

@Susanann

Uhhhh, sorry, but FYI, obama is, at least, half white.

@Susanann

Obama ancestors owned slaves, a researcher finds

Can we skip this rote nonsense for once?

[Profound_Gibberish]

@Susanann

Uhhhh, sorry, but FYI, obama is, at least, half white. I myself subjectively consider obama more white than black, since I know so much more about his white mother Stanley, and since I can identify so much more with Stanley. Moreover, obama’s personal history, what little we know of it, has more similarities with white folk.

Obama may be half-white, but put him in the middle of a small town in East Texas and let the citizens there tell you what he is.

[Susanann]

Originally Posted by Marley23
It’s possible that some trends have reached their apex under Obama, like the expansion of government and spending and military interventions. .
Originally Posted by Susanann
Objectively, that would then make him the worst president in U.S. history.

@Marley23

I don’t think you know what “objectively” means, because this does not objectively prove anything. For starters one would have to make the subjective judgment that the things I mentioned are bad, and the subjective judgment that they’re more important than other issues.

1. obama has had the biggest deficits in the history of the world! That is objective. “Biggest” speaks for itself. The obama Federal Debt, and the obama Balance of Trade deficits, are massive, unprecedented, and greater than any other president, greater than any other leader in any other country in world history. In my subjective opinion that is “bad”.

2. obama is presiding over the most military interventions (Libya, Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, etc). It is my opinion that so many military interventions are also “bad”. War is bad, peace is good.

*BTW, You are the one who picked those 2 categories (although I agree that those 2 categories are most important).

[Marley23]

@Susanann

In my subjective opinion that is “bad”.

So we’re agreed it’s your opinion and not a fact. Thank you. There was no reason to phrase it oterwise. It’s a fact that the deficit is up, for example, although - and I already said this - only time will tell if those sorts of things keep increasing. The debt has been building for generations and the size and responsibilities of the government has also been increasing for a long time. From those standpoints it only makes sense to call Obama the worst (subjectively) if you believe Bush was the second worst, Clinton the third-worst, and that the next guy or gal might bump them all down a notch. And you may indeed believe that, but a lot of people are going to have trouble treating that kind of outrage seriously even if the issues are real.

[Susanann]

@Marley23

1. The debt has been building for generations and the size and responsibilities of the government has also been increasing for a long time.

2. From those standpoints it only makes sense to call Obama the worst (subjectively) if you believe Bush was the second worst,

3. and that the next guy or gal might bump them all down a notch. .

1. No. All federal spending and all federal budgets are every 2 years. The past does not matter. Every 2 years Congress decides again if we should have a deficit or not, and the President decides every day if he is going to veto each and every new spending bill. It does not matter what was done in the past. The federal budget can be balanced this evening if the presidents wants it.
2. Yes, of course. Bush WAS the worst president in history…until obama came along.
3. No. As I said in point 1, the next President starts clean. The next President does not have to continue to amass huge deficits, the next President does not have to make nor continue war in Iraq, Libya, Pakistan, etc. The next President is not bound in any way to be worse than obama is.

[Great_Antibob]

@Susanann

1. obama has had the biggest deficits in the history of the world! That is objective.

A number is a number, but a particular USE for a number is not automatically objective.

While we have historic deficits, we also have a historically big economy. By percentage of GDP, we don’t have the largest deficits in the history of the world. Not even close.

Beyond that, most of the deficits came in Obama’s first year in office. In other words, much of that debt was inherited.

Blame Obama solely for the mess, if you want, but don’t pretend this is not a case of “lies, damned lies, and statistics”.

[Great_Antibob]

@Susanann

1. No. All federal spending and all federal budgets are every 2 years.

This is just factually wrong. Where did you even get this?

A new federal budget is proposed and passed EACH year. It’s been this way for a loooooong time.
The President, while a large part of the process, does NOT control the power of the purse string. That’s purely the domain of the legislature. Sure, the President proposes a budget and leads the party, but it’s ultimately Congress’s responsibility to pass a budget. The President gets a veto of the budget, which can be overruled by Congress.

The federal budget can be balanced over night. Of course, that also means lots of people lose a lot of federal support (i.e. it will literally keep government out of Medicare by killing the program). It’s easier to blame the President for failing to balance the budget than explaining why you and your fellow legislators cut Medicare and SS benefits.