Deleted
Joined: May 18, 2024 1:09:36 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 18, 2016 19:19:56 GMT -5
Virgil are you sure you didn't read the Onion and took it as real news? Here is a question for the claim that US is now feared by everyone: why is it that about half of the population(assuming that republicans represent about half) claim that he didn't do enough for the image of the country, that he weakened our position in the world stage? Are we feared in the world acording to some but not feared nearly enough acording to an almost majority? That can't be! A glass is either almost full or almost empty! Can't be both at the same time! I think this George Washinghton character eats puff cheeses in his tighty whitey in his mom's basement and reads polls conducted in the Middle East. The world is full of wannabe's! Most of the republicans are idiots and should not be trusted on ideas on war or military. You insult a writer with kiddie insults because you cannot discuss his points rationally? Or for some other reason?
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on May 18, 2016 19:19:58 GMT -5
note: i am not prepared to comment on the TPP. i have no idea if it is the worst abomination since the bikini or the savior of all mankind. Sanders seems to think it will be the end of us. but they said the same thing about NAFTA.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on May 18, 2016 19:34:46 GMT -5
let's use indictments handed down against federal officials as a measure of corruption. Obama- (1) Patraeus and his handing off secrets to his mistress Bush 43 (5) Clinton (2) Bush 41 (1) Reagan (6) Carter (0) Ford (1) Nixon (10) Johnson, Kennedy, Eisenhower, Truman, Roosevelt, Hoover (0) that is nearly 90 years of presidents. (26) indictments, and nearly 40% happened under Nixon, 20% under Reagan and Bush 43 (each), and the remaining 20% under the other (11) presidents combined. yet Obama is the most corrupt? yeah. Indictments for corruption? In 2016? Again, you must be joking. and you are lecturing ME about being dismissive? seriously, tho. what do you mean? edit: unless you see something like this: , i am not joking. you can refrain from asking me in the future.
|
|
Kolt!
Well-Known Member
Joined: Jan 31, 2016 17:45:32 GMT -5
Posts: 1,311
|
Post by Kolt! on May 18, 2016 19:58:18 GMT -5
What president was worse at war? Johnson maybe? I don't know my history well enough to go to far back. Maybe Lincoln, with the civil war. I could see an argument that he was a worse president when it came to war. What president spied on Americans more? Bush started Homeland security and deserves a ton of hate for doing that. Obama took it and ran with it though. He has only expanded the government's spying on American citizens. I will admit this in probably in large part because he has the tools to do what he does and other presidents didn't have those tools. Obama wanted to kill an American citizen without trial. Just drone him to death. What other president has said we should just kill American citizens without right of trial? Just kill them. Look at how the federal government makes colleges deal with accusations of sexual assault on campus. They have colleges prosecute and give the accused no right to challenge witnesses. And it is the federal government driving those changes, the federal government under the executive branch. You're LITERALLY just looking to find ways to say he's the worst in something. If one thing doesn't work you go on search for another thing. And other USA Presidents HAVE said this without the right of trail. MANY believed African American's at one point in time didn't deserve the right of trail... AND what about the assassination of Abe Lincoln and the government lynching Mary Sunnatt without reasonable trail and later learned she had nothing to do with the assassination. If Bush started it and Obama still ran with it that doesn't make it Obama has the worst with it, sure he continued it which I don't agree with but that doesn't mean he becomes the worst president just because he continued it. Look who started it too. And spying on citizen's actually didn't start with Bush they just had other ways around it. Why do you thin at one point in time American's had to fear just uttering anything about communists? They had people on the streets listening to citizens, they had spies all over the United States listening to people during the war. I read an entire book about Woman of World War 2 and a woman named Rosie did just this. She would spy on the United States citizens. My point is everything Obama has done that isnt' deemed worthy has been done by many other Presidents in the United States history. I ALSO don't EVEN want to hear anything about sexual assault on campus because MORE often than not still to this day THE person convicted of sexual assault ACTUALLY gets away with a slap on the wrist. Also, needless to say everything that has passed, or not passed isn't always on Obama.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 18, 2024 1:09:36 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 18, 2016 20:04:02 GMT -5
It is the subject of the thread. Of course I am looking for ways to support the view I have.
I do not know why you used the word "literally" I do not think people would think I was figuratively looking for ways to say he was worst in something
|
|
Kolt!
Well-Known Member
Joined: Jan 31, 2016 17:45:32 GMT -5
Posts: 1,311
|
Post by Kolt! on May 18, 2016 20:10:12 GMT -5
Your view is wrong. History backs up this 100 times over that President Obama even with his wrong doings another President has done far worse things. Everything you list another President can be listed doing the same exact thing but generally to a bigger extreme.
You just want to find a way to claim Obama is the worst when nothing can be said to back it up. He may not be a "good president," but he's far from the "worst president the USA ever had." that is fact.
You yourself has even said you don't know your history that well. Go do your research. I for one have done my research. I work for a University History Department. I've had to take five years of History classes. I read history books in my spare time.
Even Professors in the History Department that despise President Obama will tell you the same exact thing, he is far from the worst President the United States has seen. Professors with PHD's in History. Professors that study Presidents for research.
I digress... "Literally" is a word spoken often from my generation.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 18, 2024 1:09:36 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 18, 2016 20:19:27 GMT -5
No other president was at war the entirety of their presidency. None. Not one. No other president has spied on as many American citizens as President Obama. Ask one of your professors which president spied on more American citizens as a percentage or as just a raw number. The answer is 'none of them'.
|
|
ken a.k.a OMK
Senior Associate
They killed Kenny, the bastards.
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 14:39:20 GMT -5
Posts: 14,117
Location: Maryland
|
Post by ken a.k.a OMK on May 18, 2016 20:26:20 GMT -5
What president was worse at war? Johnson maybe? I don't know my history well enough to go to far back. Maybe Lincoln, with the civil war. I could see an argument that he was a worse president when it came to war. What president spied on Americans more? Bush started Homeland security and deserves a ton of hate for doing that. Obama took it and ran with it though. He has only expanded the government's spying on American citizens. I will admit this in probably in large part because he has the tools to do what he does and other presidents didn't have those tools. Obama wanted to kill an American citizen without trial. Just drone him to death. What other president has said we should just kill American citizens without right of trial? Just kill them. Look at how the federal government makes colleges deal with accusations of sexual assault on campus. They have colleges prosecute and give the accused no right to challenge witnesses. And it is the federal government driving those changes, the federal government under the executive branch. I think you can blame Dick Cheney for most of the wars and loss of privacy.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 18, 2024 1:09:36 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 18, 2016 20:32:47 GMT -5
What president was worse at war? Johnson maybe? I don't know my history well enough to go to far back. Maybe Lincoln, with the civil war. I could see an argument that he was a worse president when it came to war. What president spied on Americans more? Bush started Homeland security and deserves a ton of hate for doing that. Obama took it and ran with it though. He has only expanded the government's spying on American citizens. I will admit this in probably in large part because he has the tools to do what he does and other presidents didn't have those tools. Obama wanted to kill an American citizen without trial. Just drone him to death. What other president has said we should just kill American citizens without right of trial? Just kill them. Look at how the federal government makes colleges deal with accusations of sexual assault on campus. They have colleges prosecute and give the accused no right to challenge witnesses. And it is the federal government driving those changes, the federal government under the executive branch. I think you can blame Dick Cheney for most of the wars and loss of privacy. I think you might like people to say Cheney was the guy and Obama isnt, but that is unfair to Obama. he has had 8 years almost to show who and what he is. He deserves to be judged on his time in office. Cheney was a war monger, but Obama has had his war monger advisers also. No other president has been at war as long as he. It says something about his views on war. My belief is that Obama is just a continued version of the Bush Cheney presidency. There is little to no difference on what they wanted and what they were working for.
|
|
mroped
Senior Member
Joined: Nov 17, 2014 17:36:56 GMT -5
Posts: 3,453
|
Post by mroped on May 18, 2016 20:48:59 GMT -5
"You insult a writer with kiddie insults because you cannot discuss his points rationally? Or for some other reason"
Even Danielle Steele who wrote the cheesiest of romance novels did more research and had more accurate facts about what she was writing. This Washinghton fellow just spits out things with no facts for a back up so yeah, the kiddie insult seems fit for the occasion. Hary Potter stories are more believebale than that.
And you keep beating that horse with the war! While there is sacrifice and pain and suffering I wouldn't realy call the two theaters in Iraq and Afganistan as "war zones" This is the United States! War means 2-300000 troops on the front line, armed to their teeth and ready to kick some ass! Tinkering with ISIS and playing hide-n-seek is just confusing! And that is because we have politicians in cushy chairs making decisions about what soldiers should do. That's insane! Dont offend this, don't offend that! How is anything suppose to get done? You wanna make an omelet? You're gonna have to break some eggs!
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on May 18, 2016 21:11:19 GMT -5
Indictments for corruption? In 2016? Again, you must be joking. and you are lecturing ME about being dismissive? seriously, tho. what do you mean? edit: unless you see something like this: , i am not joking. you can refrain from asking me in the future. Let me put it this way: indictments are an indication that government corruption is being exposed, prosecuted, dealt with. Indictments occur when government is transparent and functional. If there was any justice in the world, Tim Geithner, Hank Paulson, Ben Bernanke, Hillary Clinton, Lloyd Blankfein, half of Wall Street, and even Pres. Obama himself would be indicted right now. Are they? No. All of these indictments would necessarily have had to have been filed by the present-day administration (due to timing), even if much of the fraud took place in Pres. Bush's second term. I ask you again: Are these people indicted? No. Indictment is the sign of a government that cares about corruption. The most opaque US administration ever, whistleblowers flying into prisons, reports being redacted, prosecutors refusing to charge guilty individuals... these are signs of corruption.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on May 18, 2016 21:24:07 GMT -5
The entire start-to-finish cost of Pres. Roosevelt's "New Deal" was 375 billion dollars in inflation-adjusted terms. The "stimulus" program under Pres. Obama, which has produced virtually no growth and enriched Wall Street beyond imagining (again, going to the wealth inequality point) has cost the US taxpayer (depending on what you do and don't count) between 3 and 8 trillion dollars. Where Pres. Roosevelt picks up points in abusing EOs, Pres. Obama picks up points in blowing anywhere from 8-25 times as much money on the purpose of expanding wealth inequality. Again, he doesn't have to be worse than every single president in every single respect. Some former presidents beat him out in a category or two. But he's got points in every single category. Fomenting war. Overspending and incurring massive debts. Eroding civil liberties. Political excess. Shady deals. Hiding government workings from the public. Perpetuating the sins of his predecessor. Lying. Selling out America to corporate interests. Expanding domestic surveillance. You've got big points in every single column. expanding wealth inequality? what does that mean? the GINI index was 41.8 in 2007. it is 41.1 now. is that better? not much. is it worse? no. edit: the GINI index was 37.7 in 1986. it expanded steadily under Reagan, Bush41, Clinton and Bush 43. it has been relatively flat under Obama. edit: for the record, i wasn't talking about "The New Deal"- but keep in mind that the cost of that programme didn't end in 1949. Where are you getting these numbers from. Here's where I'm getting mine from (bold by me): According to the Census Bureau, the official Gini coefficient for the United States was 46.9 in 2010, the most recent year with data available. This is way up from the all-time low of 38.6 set in 1968.
Income inequality statistics can differ depending on how income is defined.
Gini coefficients can be used to measure the concentration of any distribution, not just the distributions of income. Higher concentrations translate into higher inequality. Lower concentrations mean lower inequality.
For example, wealth inequality in America runs much higher than income inequality. New York University economist Edward Wolff estimates the Gini coefficient for household wealth — net worth — in the United States to be 86.5, based on 2009 data. That’s much higher than any income inequality estimate.
Leaving aside wealth and other forms of inequality, even income inequality statistics can differ depending on how income is defined.
The most common definition of income used by the Census Bureau and other statistical agencies is total money income of a household, excluding capital gains. All of the members of a household are assumed to share in the household’s combined income.
Household income includes wages, salaries, interest, dividends, alimony payments, child support, Social Security payments, and any other cash transfers. It doesn’t include food stamps, Medicare, or other non-cash benefits.
A major gap in the measurement of income inequality is the exclusion of capital gains, profits made on increases in the value of investments. Capital gains are excluded for purely practical reasons. The Census doesn’t ask about them, so they can’t be included in inequality statistics.
Real levels of income inequality in America run much higher than the official Census Bureau figures would suggest.
Obviously, the rich earn much more from investments than the poor. As a result, real levels of income inequality in America are much higher than the official Census Bureau figures would suggest.
Edward Wolff, working with Federal Reserve Board data that included capital gains, but not government transfer payments, put the figure at 57.4 for 2006. What does Mr. Washington specifically talk about? Wealth inequality. Why? Because it's wealth inequality that's spiked during Pres. Obama's tenure. The bailouts, QE1, QE2, Twist, Twist 2, QE3--all of these in the past 8 years, none of them has done a blessed thing for Main Street, and Wall Street is lining their pockets. Americans put Pres. Obama into power with the expectation that he'd take these crooks to the woodshed, and instead he's handed them 3-8 trillion dollars (You know what's sad? We can't even tell because of how bloody opaque the administration is.), more than Pres. Bush ever did, as well as the promise of monopolies on carbon credits exchanges, the complete selling out of US sovereignty (as well as immunizing US banks from prosecution in Europe) via the TTIP, and zero indictments of the architects of the 2008 collapse as icing on the cake. In terms of gross financial mismanagement, the man beats Pres. Bush hands down.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on May 19, 2016 10:51:45 GMT -5
and you are lecturing ME about being dismissive? seriously, tho. what do you mean? edit: unless you see something like this: , i am not joking. you can refrain from asking me in the future. Let me put it this way: indictments are an indication that government corruption is being exposed, prosecuted, dealt with. Indictments occur when government is transparent and functional. If there was any justice in the world, Tim Geithner, Hank Paulson, Ben Bernanke, Hillary Clinton, Lloyd Blankfein, half of Wall Street, and even Pres. Obama himself would be indicted right now. Are they? No. All of these indictments would necessarily have had to have been filed by the present-day administration (due to timing), even if much of the fraud took place in Pres. Bush's second term. I ask you again: Are these people indicted? No. Indictment is the sign of a government that cares about corruption. The most opaque US administration ever, whistleblowers flying into prisons, reports being redacted, prosecutors refusing to charge guilty individuals... these are signs of corruption. in the case of Nixon, indictments occurred because the government was NOT being transparent. on what grounds would, say, Geithner be indicted, Virgil? and we already agreed on whistleblowing- which is why Obama will never make the "great" list. you don't need to keep bringing up points that have already been conceded. i think it is disgraceful of him/his administration, and i have said so.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on May 19, 2016 10:53:50 GMT -5
expanding wealth inequality? what does that mean? the GINI index was 41.8 in 2007. it is 41.1 now. is that better? not much. is it worse? no. edit: the GINI index was 37.7 in 1986. it expanded steadily under Reagan, Bush41, Clinton and Bush 43. it has been relatively flat under Obama. edit: for the record, i wasn't talking about "The New Deal"- but keep in mind that the cost of that programme didn't end in 1949. Where are you getting these numbers from. Here's where I'm getting mine from (bold by me): According to the Census Bureau, the official Gini coefficient for the United States was 46.9 in 2010, the most recent year with data available. This is way up from the all-time low of 38.6 set in 1968.
Income inequality statistics can differ depending on how income is defined.
Gini coefficients can be used to measure the concentration of any distribution, not just the distributions of income. Higher concentrations translate into higher inequality. Lower concentrations mean lower inequality.
For example, wealth inequality in America runs much higher than income inequality. New York University economist Edward Wolff estimates the Gini coefficient for household wealth — net worth — in the United States to be 86.5, based on 2009 data. That’s much higher than any income inequality estimate.
Leaving aside wealth and other forms of inequality, even income inequality statistics can differ depending on how income is defined.
The most common definition of income used by the Census Bureau and other statistical agencies is total money income of a household, excluding capital gains. All of the members of a household are assumed to share in the household’s combined income.
Household income includes wages, salaries, interest, dividends, alimony payments, child support, Social Security payments, and any other cash transfers. It doesn’t include food stamps, Medicare, or other non-cash benefits.
A major gap in the measurement of income inequality is the exclusion of capital gains, profits made on increases in the value of investments. Capital gains are excluded for purely practical reasons. The Census doesn’t ask about them, so they can’t be included in inequality statistics.
Real levels of income inequality in America run much higher than the official Census Bureau figures would suggest.
Obviously, the rich earn much more from investments than the poor. As a result, real levels of income inequality in America are much higher than the official Census Bureau figures would suggest.
Edward Wolff, working with Federal Reserve Board data that included capital gains, but not government transfer payments, put the figure at 57.4 for 2006. What does Mr. Washington specifically talk about? Wealth inequality. Why? Because it's wealth inequality that's spiked during Pres. Obama's tenure. The bailouts, QE1, QE2, Twist, Twist 2, QE3--all of these in the past 8 years, none of them has done a blessed thing for Main Street, and Wall Street is lining their pockets. Americans put Pres. Obama into power with the expectation that he'd take these crooks to the woodshed, and instead he's handed them 3-8 trillion dollars (You know what's sad? We can't even tell because of how bloody opaque the administration is.), more than Pres. Bush ever did, as well as the promise of monopolies on carbon credits exchanges, the complete selling out of US sovereignty (as well as immunizing US banks from prosecution in Europe) via the TTIP, and zero indictments of the architects of the 2008 collapse as icing on the cake. In terms of gross financial mismanagement, the man beats Pres. Bush hands down. i'm getting mine from the World Bank website. note: your site doesn't show the GINI for 2007, so you have no way of judging how "bad" Obama is by this measure. you know that i prefer to judge debt by the size of the debtor, right? when you do that, Obama, Reagan and FDR are basically tied for 1st (though i think that Obama is actually 2nd). this is actually a standard way of doing it, but i know you don't agree with it. so, let's just say that by MY standard (and that of most economists), Obama doesn't really distinguish himself in terms of increasing the debt. i agree, however, that he beats Bush on increasing the debt, thanks to the way he left the economy and our foreign policy. well done, W.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on May 19, 2016 11:13:30 GMT -5
by the way, you know that the correlation between wealth and income inequality is greater than 0.8, right? they are highly correlated. but if you want to measure by WEALTH inequality, Obama actually trails TWO previous presidents, not just one.
|
|
dondub
Senior Associate
The meek shall indeed inherit the earth but only after the Visigoths are done with it.
Joined: Jan 16, 2014 19:31:06 GMT -5
Posts: 12,110
Location: Seattle
Favorite Drink: Laphroig
|
Post by dondub on May 19, 2016 11:24:27 GMT -5
Not sure where the number of indictments in Reagan admin was listed as 6. I prefer this:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reagan_administration_scandals
The presidency of Ronald Reagan in the United States was marked by multiple scandals, resulting in the investigation, indictment, or conviction of over 138 administration officials ... The investigations were effectively halted when President George H. W. Bush (Reagan's vice president) pardoned Secretary of Defense ...
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on May 19, 2016 11:29:14 GMT -5
Not sure where the number of indictments in Reagan admin was listed as 6. I prefer this:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reagan_administration_scandals
The presidency of Ronald Reagan in the United States was marked by multiple scandals, resulting in the investigation, indictment, or conviction of over 138 administration officials ... The investigations were effectively halted when President George H. W. Bush (Reagan's vice president) pardoned Secretary of Defense ... it was from a listing of federal indictments at Wikipedia. edit: i was rewarded for my SINCERE EFFORT at measuring corruption in a DISCERNIBLE WAY by basically being scoffed at. no good deed goes unpunished @ymam.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on May 19, 2016 11:59:04 GMT -5
The Reagan Administration was the most scandal ridden Presidency in US history, eclipsing even that of Richard Nixon.
One could argue that Reagan himself was "out of the loop", but he was ultimately in charge after all.
that argument doesn't preserve Nixon, Grant and Harding. i don't see why it should preserve Reagan.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on May 19, 2016 12:01:09 GMT -5
i find it fascinating that the largest wealth disparity since the great depression happened under our "socialist" comrade Obama.
|
|
dondub
Senior Associate
The meek shall indeed inherit the earth but only after the Visigoths are done with it.
Joined: Jan 16, 2014 19:31:06 GMT -5
Posts: 12,110
Location: Seattle
Favorite Drink: Laphroig
|
Post by dondub on May 19, 2016 13:25:23 GMT -5
I find it fascinating that the Righties still hero worship Reagan. One would think that on the trading of weapons to the Islamofascists of Iran would be enough to make them reconsider their devotion. And that's just point #1 of a list that is incredible.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on May 19, 2016 21:42:45 GMT -5
What I'm seeing is a lot of "Pres. Reagan edges him out here", "Pres. Bush edges him out here", "two Presidents in the 1920's presided over comparable wealth inequality", "Pres. Nixon's wartime losses were greater", ...
As I said before: Pres. Obama doesn't have to come in dead last in every single category to come in dead last overall. He doesn't have to be the worst re government opacity, the worst re running up debt, the worst re starting and perpetuating wars, the worst re abusing executive power, the worst re turning a blind eye to corruption. Pres. Bush 43 is the only other president who ranks highly in every column, and while I admit it's a close race, Pres. Obama's 11th hour antics have clinched him first place.
That's even counting certain foreign affairs gambits (such as the Iranian nuclear disarmament deal) to his credit, even though they might yet prove disastrous.
|
|