Looking back at Obama's time as POTUS.

[iiandyiiii]

Here is some polling on race relations, between black and white Americans. Between 2008 and 2013, opinions on race relations as “somewhat good” or “very good” rose slightly for white Americans (2 points) and moderately for black Americans (6 points). They then dropped hugely for white Americans from 2013-2015 (-27 points) and recovered slightly to 2016 (4 points); for black Americans race relations dropped by 17 points from 2013-2016.

By this, it was BLM (and perhaps the backlash to that movement) that changed public opinion on race relations – from 2008-2013, it was improving slightly.

[Velocity]

@BobLibDem

Do you expect his successor to add more or less debt than Obama? How much of the debt increase under Obama was due to Bush’s unfunded wars, his misguided tax cuts, and the unfunded prescription drug benefit?

I understand *why *the debt increased - it’s politically painful to take the measures to cut the debt (both cutting spending and increasing taxation can lead to lost votes). But the country needs a POTUS who will do the unpopular but necessary things - and by that I mean both spending cuts and taxation increases, not just one or either.

And to be fair, if Obama had done that in his presidency, there’s a good chance that the Democrats would have lost in 2012 - and maybe lost in 2016 by a bigger margin. Again, I understand politically why cutting the debt wasn’t attractive. But the country needs a POTUS who will do the painful-but-necessary things.

And for sure, Trump won’t reduce the debt either. But there still needs to be accountability. You can’t just increase the debt tab by $9 trillion and walk away with no consequences.

[Airbeck]

@aldiboronti

For starters how about jumping to conclusions and blaming a white cop before he knew the facts? (The Henry Louis Gates controversy). That was right at the beginning of his Presidency and showed his innate bias from the get-go.

The beginning of his remarks on that were “I don’t know, not having been there and not seeing all the facts, what role race played in that. But I think it’s fair to say, number one, any of us would be pretty angry”

Presidents are expected to comment on the events of the day and he immediately cautioned that he didn’t know the facts or whether race played any role, and then he invited both parties to the White House to talk. Here is the current state of their relationship:

“During an appearance on The Oprah Winfrey Show, Gates stated that relations between him and Crowley are amicable. He also revealed that he asked Crowley for a sample of his DNA and interestingly enough, he and Crowley are actually distant cousins and share a common Irish ancestor.[79] On the show, Gates stated that Crowley recently gave him the handcuffs used in the arrest. When asked what he would do with the handcuffs, Gates stated that he plans to donate the handcuffs to the Smithsonian’s National Museum of African American History and Culture.”

So this is your cite to prove that Obama spoke without the facts and worsened race relations? Where he started by saying that he didn’t have the facts, and the end result is everyone involved getting along fine? Kind of weak support for a very strong statement that he worsened race relations in the US.

@aldiboronti

That bias showed itself in subtle ways all through his tenure, especially in the way the Justice Department acted.

Can you expand on this a bit? Cites for these subtle ways his bias was shown? Anything concrete, or just what you feel in your gut? Also what specific actions of the Justice Department worsened race relations in the US over the past 8 years?

@aldiboronti

You don’t think race relations are worse now than they were in 2009? You don’t think he bears any responsibility at all? He was the guy in charge, the buck stops with him.

A black man became president in 2009. We still have an awful lot of racists in this country that will never accept that as legitimate and who became emboldened to be more overt and pubic with their racist opinions as a result. Trump normalized it during his campaign and now we have people openly advocating white nationalist ideology as if its a legitimate political viewpoint.

I think there are a lot more factors involved here than you think. I truly believe that Obama wanted to bridge the culture gap and bring everyone together, however he underestimated the degree to which this would be resisted by certain parts of the population.

I’m white, but I simply can’t think of anything Obama has ever said on racial issues that made me upset, in fact my takeaway is how much he tried to speak to everyone and get us to see each others viewpoints and calm tensions. So that’s why I’m asking why people feel so strongly that he singlehandedly worsened race relations in the US. Your sole cite was not impressive, and the rest of your post was unsubstantiated opinion, so I’m still waiting for something concrete.

[running_coach]

@Velocity

I understand why the debt increased - it’s politically painful to take the measures to cut the debt (both cutting spending and increasing taxation can lead to lost votes). But the country needs a POTUS who will do the unpopular but necessary things - and by that I mean both spending cuts and taxation increases, not just one or either.**

And to be fair, if Obama had done that in his presidency, there’s a good chance that the Democrats would have lost in 2012 - and maybe lost in 2016 by a bigger margin. Again, I understand politically why cutting the debt wasn’t attractive. But the country needs a POTUS who will do the painful-but-necessary things.

And for sure, Trump won’t reduce the debt either. But there still needs to be accountability. You can’t just increase the debt tab by $9 trillion and walk away with no consequences.

You’re leaving Congress out of it?

[Kimstu]

@iiandyiiii

Here is some polling on race relations, between black and white Americans. Between 2008 and 2013, opinions on race relations as “somewhat good” or “very good” rose slightly for white Americans (2 points) and moderately for black Americans (6 points). They then dropped hugely for white Americans from 2013-2015 (-27 points) and recovered slightly to 2016 (4 points); for black Americans race relations dropped by 17 points from 2013-2016.

To me, this suggests not so much any change in actual race relations but a fairly sudden debunking of ideas about perceived race relations. I don’t think it’s coincidental that the most notorious cases in shootings of black people, including Trayvon Martin, Michael Brown, Eric Garner, Laquan McDonald, and Tamir Rice, date from 2013 and 2014, and that some of them involved cellphone video footage.

Personal videography and social media were new factors in police shootings, and they led to the widespread realization, especially among white people, that black people were at much higher risk of violence from encounters with law enforcement than had been previously thought. Whatever factor(s) an individual might choose to blame for this, it definitely reinforced the awareness that race relations in America were not actually as good as many of us had naively assumed.

@iiandyiiii

By this, it was BLM (and perhaps the backlash to that movement) that changed public opinion on race relations

Sort of; I’d argue that the real change catalyst was not so much the movement itself as the well-publicized incidents that initially inspired the movement. Maybe that’s a distinction without a difference, though.

@Airbeck

I’m white, but I simply can’t think of anything Obama has ever said on racial issues that made me upset, in fact my takeaway is how much he tried to speak to everyone and get us to see each others viewpoints and calm tensions. So that’s why I’m asking why people feel so strongly that he singlehandedly worsened race relations in the US.

My personal opinion: I think a lot of white Americans who definitely don’t see themselves as racist, and who would be very indignant about somebody being directly insulting or disrespectful to a black person on racial grounds, nonetheless have an unconsciously built-in “comfort zone” that involves white people being the default primary people, with black people as secondary figures.

So Obama merely by being President as a black man made a lot of those white Americans uncomfortable, and they diagnosed that feeling as Obama somehow doing something wrong when it came to race relations.

Consider, for example, the brief furor over an honor-guard Marine corporal holding an umbrella over Obama back in 2013. This was a completely unremarkable bit of protocol with tons of precedent among earlier POTUSes, but in Obama’s case the public freaked out.

Just something about seeing a stalwart white man in uniform and white gloves holding an umbrella over a black man in authority and a nice suit caused many white self-described non-racists to instinctively recoil. And they naturally assumed that, since they themselves were definitely not racists, it had to be because of something that Obama had done wrong.

[Fotheringay-Phipps]

@Airbeck

The beginning of his remarks on that were “I don’t know, not having been there and not seeing all the facts, what role race played in that. But I think it’s fair to say, number one, any of us would be pretty angry”

Presidents are expected to comment on the events of the day and he immediately cautioned that he didn’t know the facts or whether race played any role, and then he invited both parties to the White House to talk.

Presidents are not expected to immediately jump in with comments about unfolding issues, especially if - as was the case with Obama in that incident - they don’t actually know what they’re talking about.

And the same goes for his comments about Trayvon Martin.

Can you expand on this a bit? Cites for these subtle ways his bias was shown? Anything concrete, or just what you feel in your gut? Also what specific actions of the Justice Department worsened race relations in the US over the past 8 years?

ISTM that the primary focus of the DOJ over the past 8 years has been in expanding “civil rights” in various ways, including crackdowns on police, end runs around drug laws etc.

Of course, if you start off from the perspective that black people in the US are a horribly oppressed minority and all the above are aspects of that, then everything is justified, and the only people who would get upset are white bigots. So there’s not much in this conversation. But that’s the other perspective, anyway.

[adaher]

@Airbeck

Until those regions become unlivable due to pollution, and the miners start dying off due to lack of safety regulations, sure. Seems rather short sighted to me though…

Coal mining has been around for a long time. While you’re not wrong, coal miners themselves know how their career ends(black lung) and still want the work.

[adaher]

@iiandyiiii

The red line statement was dumb, but I’m very glad he didn’t stick to his statement – if he had, we’d have hundreds or thousands of Americans dead, likely with a more chaotic situation on the ground. The region is inherently uncontrollable from abroad, and there’s no way to predict whether military intervention will make things better or worse on the ground (except that based on recent history, it will probably make things worse).

The risk of other nations thinking that America bluffs is potentially billions dead.

[running_coach]

@Fotheringay-Phipps

Presidents are not expected to immediately jump in with comments about unfolding issues, especially if - as was the case with Obama in that incident - they don’t actually know what they’re talking about.

And the same goes for his comments about Trayvon Martin.

So we can expect that Trump won’t do that, right?

And actually, we do expect politicians to jump in and react to any developing situation.
And then criticize if they’re wrong or working on early reports.

[Fotheringay-Phipps]

@running_coach

So we can expect that Trump won’t do that, right?

I assume that’s not a joke, but that you’re assuming you can cancel out any criticism of Obama by pointing out that Trump is worse. Doesn’t work that way.

And actually, we do expect politicians to jump in and react to any developing situation.
And then criticize if they’re wrong or working on early reports.

Not how it works.

I mean, if we were attacked by a foreign power or something else that actually required presidential leadership, then yeah. But commenting on some local altercation between a white guy and a black guy to say that obviously the black guy is a great guy and/or obviously the white guy did something wrong, no. You let the local authorities investigate and see how it plays out.

[iiandyiiii]

@adaher

The risk of other nations thinking that America bluffs is potentially billions dead.

Not comparable to MAD in the least.

[Kimstu]

@Fotheringay-Phipps

ISTM that the primary focus of the DOJ over the past 8 years has been in expanding “civil rights” in various ways, including crackdowns on police

Actually, the DOJ under Obama has not undertaken significantly more “crackdowns on police” than previous administrations:

Relying on a sweeping federal law drafted 22 years ago by then-Sen. Joe Biden, the Obama administration has pursued about two dozen civil rights inquiries into local police such as the one focused on the Baltimore Police Department to be released on Wednesday [August 2016]. […]

It is not that the Obama administration has opened significantly more of the civil rights investigations — the number is roughly equivalent to those launched under the previous administration, according to a list of cases provided by the Justice Department — but rather how those inquiries are being closed.

Under President George W. Bush, the Justice Department was more likely to rely on informal agreements to try to address systemic problems. Under Obama, the government is more likely to seek court intervention or monitoring by a third party.

[QUOTE=Fotheringay-Phipps]

end runs around drug laws etc.

[/quote]

Actually, the DOJ in recent years has been found excessively aggressive in pursuing federal drug law penalties against people who are in compliance with state medical marijuana laws, and Congress had to tell them to back off:

[…] the agency continues to target people who are complying with their state medical marijuana law. […]

Members of both parties took to the House floor in opposition to the prosecution of medical marijuana patients and providers and in defense of states setting their own marijuana laws without federal interference.

What specific policies were you referring to by the vague phrase “end runs around drug laws etc.”?

[QUOTE=Fotheringay-Phipps]

Of course, if you start off from the perspective that black people in the US are a horribly oppressed minority and all the above are aspects of that, then everything is justified, and the only people who would get upset are white bigots.

[/QUOTE]

:dubious: AFAICT, what the DOJ has mostly done under Obama, in addition to the police and civil rights inquiries and marijuana crackdowns mentioned above, involves general sentencing reform, prison reform, and anti-recidivism initiatives. I’m not sure why you’re choosing to racialize that by assuming it requires “the perspective that black people in the US are a horribly oppressed minority”.

So I’m not really seeing why you’re saying that recent DOJ policies are responsible for worsening race relations. As I noted to iiandyiiii, I think it’s more likely that what we’re seeing from the polls is simply a more realistic perception of the actual state of US race relations, inspired by modern technology’s higher visibility of controversial shootings and the reactions to them.

[adaher]

@iiandyiiii

Not comparable to MAD in the least.

I was thinking more about Russia and the Baltics. A bluff in Syria will be very costly if it causes Putin to miscalculate.

[iiandyiiii]

@adaher

I was thinking more about Russia and the Baltics. A bluff in Syria will be very costly if it causes Putin to miscalculate.

You said “billions”. For potential regional conflicts like the Baltics, it’s a reasonable criticism of Obama’s red-line mistake. But in my calculation, it was still wiser (after the initial mistake of saying “red line”) to not follow through than to follow through – a definite loss of hundreds or thousands of Americans is worse then the small chance (which, unless it happens in the next 30 days, isn’t going to happen) that Putin invades Estonia or something.

[BobLibDem]

@Velocity

I understand *why *the debt increased - it’s politically painful to take the measures to cut the debt (both cutting spending and increasing taxation can lead to lost votes). But the country needs a POTUS who will do the unpopular but necessary things - and by that I mean both spending cuts and taxation increases, not just one or either.

And to be fair, if Obama had done that in his presidency, there’s a good chance that the Democrats would have lost in 2012 - and maybe lost in 2016 by a bigger margin. Again, I understand politically why cutting the debt wasn’t attractive. But the country needs a POTUS who will do the painful-but-necessary things.

And for sure, Trump won’t reduce the debt either. But there still needs to be accountability. You can’t just increase the debt tab by $9 trillion and walk away with no consequences.

I agree with a lot of this. Sure, it would be nice to have a surplus. But it wouldn’t put people to work. Small deficits and small surpluses should be the goal- small surpluses when things go well and small deficits to prime the pump. Trouble is, everybody thinks elections are a referendum to give tax cuts and/or big spending for their supporters. I agree that tax increases and spending cuts are warranted. But that ain’t the way the game will ever be played again.

[spifflog]

@iiandyiiii

You said “billions”. For potential regional conflicts like the Baltics, it’s a reasonable criticism of Obama’s red-line mistake. But in my calculation, it was still wiser (after the initial mistake of saying “red line”) to not follow through than to follow through – a definite loss of hundreds or thousands of Americans is worse then the small chance (which, unless it happens in the next 30 days, isn’t going to happen) that Putin invades Estonia or something.

This is very short sighted.

You can’t just give the President a pass on his “red line” comment and say well, “that was a bad idea but once he was called on it, what’s he supposed to do?”

It goes to American credibility in international affairs, which has served this nation (and the world) well since at least world war II. Nations believe that they ran the risk of a significant penalty if they crossed a line that the United States had drawn.

Do you really think there is no connection between Obama’s “red line” failure and the subsequent entry of Russia into the middle east supporting Bashar al-Assad shortly thereafter?

Do you not believe that Putin wasn’t emboldened by the President’s lack of follow through on the “red line,” and this contributed to his decision to potentially hack our election?

So the loss of hundred of Americans isn’t worth the chance to stop not only this genocide, but the possibility of others to follow, should the world take notice?

What do you think would happen in Taiwan if the US 7th fleet wasn’t there?

What do you think would have happened to South Korea if the US wasn’t there?

Do you think the genocide and ethnic cleansing in Kosovo would have magically stopped without US lead NATO intervention, or was not worth the effort?

It’s a big bad world out there, and it’s no different than a bully on your block. If you let him steal your lunch money today, he’ll be taking it every day. It’s called leadership, and unfortunately, if the US doesn’t lead, someone else will fill the void, as happened in Syria.

I’m really surprised that you are pleased that the US has completed abdicated it’s responsibility as a world leader. And it seems beyond debate that Obama’s actions have emboldened Putin. Do you really want him running the world?

[iiandyiiii]

@spifflog

This is very short sighted.

You can’t just give the President a pass on his “red line” comment and say well, “that was a bad idea but once he was called on it, what’s he supposed to do?”

It goes to American credibility in international affairs, which has served this nation (and the world) well since at least world war II. Nations believe that they ran the risk of a significant penalty if they crossed a line that the United States had drawn.

Do you really think there is no connection between Obama’s “red line” failure and the subsequent entry of Russia into the middle east supporting Bashar al-Assad shortly thereafter?

Do you not believe that Putin wasn’t emboldened by the President’s lack of follow through on the “red line,” and this contributed to his decision to potentially hack our election?

So the loss of hundred of Americans isn’t worth the chance to stop not only this genocide, but the possibility of others to follow, should the world take notice?

What do you think would happen in Taiwan if the US 7th fleet wasn’t there?

What do you think would have happened to South Korea if the US wasn’t there?

Do you think the genocide and ethnic cleansing in Kosovo would have magically stopped without US lead NATO intervention, or was not worth the effort?

It’s a big bad world out there, and it’s no different than a bully on your block. If you let him steal your lunch money today, he’ll be taking it every day. It’s called leadership, and unfortunately, if the US doesn’t lead, someone else will fill the void, as happened in Syria.

I’m really surprised that you are pleased that the US has completed abdicated it’s responsibility as a world leader. And it seems beyond debate that Obama’s actions have emboldened Putin. Do you really want him running the world?

These all might be reasonable concerns, but I still calculate that not following through cost us less than following through on a bad bluff. And considering that we’re about to get a new President, and there were no catastrophic incidents from a loss of confidence or fear of the US since the “red line” statement, then I’m even more confident that I’m right.

My friends and compatriots still in the military aren’t a sponge to soak up the cost of bad decisions. The military should be used to protect the US against existential or near-existential threats, and anything else that puts Americans at risk must have an extremely good justification, including a very clear goal, a very clear exit strategy, and comprehensive international cooperation.

Leadership isn’t just about force and threats. Not using force is sometimes a lot smarter, and good leadership will recognize this.

As far as Kosovo, South Korea, and Taiwan, those might fit my above criteria – I’m not against every single intervention. I just have a very high standard, and Syria wasn’t even close. If we had followed through with the “red line” threat, I see no reason to believe that we wouldn’t have lots of dead Americans, a worse situation on the ground, international condemnation, and far less overall influence abroad. It’s impossible to prove, of course, but considering how very badly recent involvement in the middle east has gone, I’m very skeptical that a new intervention would go well.

[Jackmannii]

Before too long we’re going to be nostalgic about the paucity of corruption and major scandals in the Obama Administration.

[spifflog]

@iiandyiiii

. . . My friends and compatriots still in the military aren’t a sponge to soak up the cost of bad decisions.

Well I’m still in the military, so I don’t want to pay for bad decisions either. But not standing up for what needs to be done, and appeasing evil, can have worse consequences in the future.

@iiandyiiii

I just have a very high standard, and Syria wasn’t even close. . . I see no reason to believe that we wouldn’t have lots of dead Americans, a worse situation on the ground . . .and far less overall influence abroad.

Bolding mine.

Have you looked at a newspaper lately?? How the ‘f’ can the situation on the ground get any worse for God’s sake??? No kidding you really meant to type this??

I wonder what China and Putin think or our influence abroad.

[iiandyiiii]

@spifflog

Well I’m still in the military, so I don’t want to pay for bad decisions either. But not standing up for what needs to be done, and appeasing evil, can have worse consequences in the future.

We obviously disagree on “what needs to be done”. In my mind, giving into calls for further intervention is “appeasing evil”, not staying out.

Bolding mine.

Have you looked at a newspaper lately?? How the ‘f’ can the situation on the ground get any worse for God’s sake??? No kidding you really meant to type this??

I wonder what China and Putin think or our influence abroad.

Things can always be worse – much worse. There are still lots of people not dead and not fighting. Still cities that aren’t rubble. Still factions of assholes fighting each other instead of uniting to fight the US.

As for what China and Putin think, I don’t know, but one thing they see is a US military that hasn’t been stuck in a quagmire like Iraq for the past few years, along with increasing international condemnation as furtherers of never-ending war. I don’t know how to stop the never ending conflict that is the Middle East, but I think staying out is far wiser than getting back in.