It's funny to think about, but also sobering to realize he's the best president Dems have had recently considering just how much he capitulated to Republicans after he got his signature ACA bill passed. I'll never forgive him for not putting up a fight with McConnell over his Supreme Court nominee.
I was deep in the weeds of the ACA fight and this is not at all how it went down. Democrats had a filibuster-proof majority for only a few months altogether, and many in the caucus at the time were moderate red-state Democrats that didn't support a universal system. Hell, one of them, Joe Lieberman, had actively campaigned for John McCain and was on the shortlist to be his VP!
The ACA that passed via reconciliation was the most progressive possible version of it that could have passed; lose one senator or a couple of representatives in the final vote and it would have failed to pass (and arguably destroyed Obama's presidency in the process).
While the ACA could have been much better in many ways that just weren't possible to get through the Senate, if you recall before that, there was pretty much no way at all to obtain any kind of insurance without getting it through an employer, and if you switched employers, your new employer's insurance could just tell you "sorry about that diabetes, we won't cover that since you had it before you started here." We would be in a much, much worse place right now without the ACA
Bill Clinton instituted Don't Ask/Don't Tell in the 90s as a means of protecting homosexuals in the military. DADT basically meant that the military couldn't conduct investigations into a person's sexuality. They were allowed to prohibit homosexuality, but they could only act against a service member who openly indicated their homosexual preference.
DADT was horseshit from day one. The only redeeming characteristic of the policy was decriminalization of gays in the military. They could still be thrown out, but the policy quickly put an end to court martial and imprisonment of gay soldiers.
DADT was a compromise, a transitory policy that never should have been needed. It needed to be retired as soon as it was enacted, and it took decades to actually accomplish.
Obama's ACA is in a very similar position. It was horseshit from day one. It was a program designed and promoted by the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank, as opposition to various Universal Healthcare plans. It was designed from the outset to prop up the health insurance industry that desperately needed to be gutted.
It may have been the best that Obama could have achieved at the time, but it was disgustingly terrible, and the whole thing needs to be replaced with something that actually works.
Obama did appoint the empty Supreme Court seat. McConnell refused to bring it to the senate to affirm. I actually generally agree that Biden was better though, until he decided to run again. If he did what he said he was going to and became the bridge to the next generation he would be fondly remembered. Instead he'll be remembered as the person that enabled Trump's second term.
I would really like to hope that someday we can do better than Obama. Being the best president in recent memory isn't an amazingly high bar and I'd really like to see a world where we have something better.
Especially with respect to foreign policy. And I know many folks don't connect with why that's a big deal, but one of my closest friends is Coptic and her people were targeted for ethnic cleansing by a militant faction in Egypt after Obama backed them, because our favorite foreign policy in the US is to back some militant group anytime what the government of a region is doing is even mildly inconvenient to us.
If you remember the men that Isis executed on the beach in video, in the first like beheading video that was a thing ages ago- those men were Copts. My friend has community members she considered family who are dead now back in Egypt. If I remember right she said the population dropped from like 15% of Egypt to 5% in a span of a handful of years.
The toll of horrifying american foreign policy is not just an abstract bogeyman leftist bring up to trash politicians you like, they have actual death tolls and leave behind people who are mourning. Its not even good foreign policy either, we're radicalized half the world to hate our guts, which as it turns out is not the most geopolitically advantageous.
Good comment. I agree with every word you said, just thought I'd point out for the random passerby that the Copts are one of the oldest Christian groups on the planet, said to have been introduced to Christianity by the apostle Mark -- as in the author of the Gospel of St. Mark -- himself.
I have known Copts myself, though not well, and was honored to visit one of their liturgical services many years ago: they are incredibly hospitable and welcoming people, and very kind to this stranger.
More people should be aware that what you are describing is a group of actual, sincere (and not just tediously performative) Christian people genuinely persecuted and dying for their religion by Isis, and also targeted by pseudo-Christians in US government for political expediency. And it goes unnoticed because few even know who the Copts are.
Terror Tuesday was Obama's favorite day of the week. He kept doing it for 8 years. He murdered people on the basis of whether they urinated sitting down, or standing.
Given the strict choice between Obama and literally anyone running as a Republican, I would choose Obama every single time. No doubt, no hesitation. Every time.
Don't forget Obama also drone striked an American citizen, Anwar al-Awlaki. Fairly confident to say that targeting and killing an American citizen is the prime example of extra-judicial killing.
Sure, some people will be happy that an alleged terrorist was killed. However the legal justification by David J. Barron (Chief Legal Counsel) laid out the the groundwork for a future targeted extra-judicial killing of an American citizen.
You know who's currently in the US crosshairs? Trans people, leftists, immigrants, and anyone who's a non-White, cis, conservative, male.
I was never bothered about killing an Al Qaeda leader who was enthusiastically committed to terrorism against innocent Americans. The fact that he was an American citizen (by dual citizenship) is irrelevant. He was a traitor by definition, and he got what he deserved, in a war that Al Qaeda started.
As an American citizen, if you choose to wage war against America, you lose out on the protections of American courts, and you get to deal with the military, instead.
They've already come up with a crackheaded, baseless explanation. They say that it only applies to 2 consecutive terms.
Logic isn't the play. They will say/do anything that gets them what they want. You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into in the first place.
No, their "logic" is that a president is eligible for re-election only until they serve two consecutive terms, after which point they are no longer eligible.
They have to create a system that allows Trump to run but won't allow Obama to run. He couldn't stand losing to Biden, and he obviously re-lives that loss every day, but he would actually implode if he lost to Obama. And everyone around him seems to have the job of "keep Dear Leader from imploding."
I don't think most people on Lemmy are aware of how much of the far right conspiratards still believe that "the Kenyan" is actually still in charge. Even now, during Trump, everything bad is being done by Obama, the Manchurian candidate.
Fuck , he's a war criminal, and you're demonstrating perfectly why even their own voters hate the Democrats and won't be voting for them in the future.
After seeing this term used for years, this is probably the first time it even slightly made any sense. There is no bLuE mAgA. Because the actual maga cult is several million people. Not like 3000 weirdos total.
I'll never forgive Obama for having a 60 vote majority in the Senate, and then passing the limp dick affordable care act. We could have single payer health care, but he just couldn't resist the lobbying money from the insurance industry.
Also, first extrajudicial killing of an American citizen. Also, enabling seal team 6 to commit countless atrocities and war crimes. Also, continuing to be milquetoast for 6 more years just to not make Republicans feel butt hurt.
Barack Obama is the poster child for "vote blue no matter who." I'm fucking sick of hearing about how he was a good president.
He was a good president, **by comparison to Dubya and Reagan and Nixon and Truman.
**
But everything you say is true. All presidents commit countless atrocities and are compromised. Unfortunately, a guy like Mr. Rogers has no interest in being president, and the majority of people don't see the big picture and wouldn't vote for him.
When it comes to the majority of voters, you've got to remember that these are just simple farmers. These are people of the land. The common clay of the new West. You know -- morons.
There were 60 democrats in the Senate. He had that for almost 2 years. I've worked with the US government, have been at the beck and call of the US government, and know how, sadly, it works. When Barack Obama had a senate super majority, he could have passed anything he wanted. Buuuuuuuuuut, the lobbyists won.
He "Had 60 Democrats" on paper only. There's a 0% chance he had 60 votes to do anything really revolutionary. Enough Dems are on the payroll to make sure there's never any real reform.
They passed the ACA along party lines. He had the votes. Imagine how fucked w'ed be if Republicans had a 60 vote majority.
Edit: I'm not a Republican or Republican supporter, but whenever they can seize the wheels of power they do it. Democrats never do anything even when they have the advantage because they don't want to disrupt "social norms." When was the last time Republicans had a super majority and laid down to Democrats just to keep things fair?
I'm fucking sick of this both sides shit. Both parties are bad, but the Republicans are amazing at playing the long game. Where is the Democrat project 2025 or heritage foundation? Now we're all fucked thanks to that. Which btw, the Republicans never deserve to drink at the fire hose of the heritage foundation. It's just evil fueled with evil.
The negotiation inside the Dems was as bad or worse than the one with the Republicans. They didn't have 60 votes for single payer or any other real change.
Democrats have never been able to vote as a unified bloc like the Republicans do. It's easy to unite when your banner is something simple like "Democrats bad, Obama bad." When it's a complex issue like Healthcare and you're dealing with people with different agendas it gets a lot harder. Especially when politicians are mostly bought and paid for as a feature of western democracy.
There's extremely little way to become president other than being elected. Additionally there's limits on becoming president based on previous time served.
Between the two? That's easy, one is a fascist the other is not. I'm not happy about the DNC suicide pact, vote for us or else, but there are lots of other elections to address that.
Yeah no thanks, he was the best president of my life but that ain't saying much. He still had way too many major fuckups, killed way too many people, and had too many betrayals of the progressive ideals that got him the job in the first place. Besides that isn't constitutionally possible but whatevs.
Thing is, I knew it from the start. I was disappointed, but only that ALL my predictions came true. When Obama walked out to that screaming crowd with his family after winning, and everybody thought America was entering a new era, I KNEW that it was all a con, and he'd be just as "effective" as Clinton, and the Buahes, and nothing much would change, and it didn't.
All those milquetoast presidents from both sides were just softening us up for the real monster who would overthrow America for the Sociopathic Oligarchs.
yeah, sort of like how the stock market always spikes right before it crashes, you gotta give people just enough that they can convince themselves everything is going to be great, right up until the last second in order to do a proper rug pull.
I offered my perspective, which is the entire point of this entire forum. Who are you to think you can be the self-appointed Lemmy Topic Sheriff, and decide whose posts are worthy of attention? I read 10 times more irrelevant comments than relevant comments, but I don't waste my time telling those people to stop posting.
Bush caused 2008, and Obama did a masterful job of pulling America out of it. I thought it would take 20 years to recover, but Obama did it in about 2.
To fix an entirely Republican economic crash, the worst since the Great Depression. Blame the people who caused that debt increase, not the people who were repairing the problem.
Ironically, the problem with liberals is their absolute obsession with "process". It's why they are hopeless in the face of fascism. They see the fascist breaking the process, ignoring it, laughing in their faces. But will not "go down to their level".
It's not something unexpected. Obama and his "legacy". His legacy is Trump. His absolute failure as a president in the face of massive in equality, endless wars, and civil rights. Of course the liberals loved him. He did everything by the books, reached across the aisle, and left things to the absolute failure of a candidate that was Hillary Clinton. But they happily followed the "process" let themselves be blocked by a party over and over that did not care about it.
Say what you will about the Republicans. But, they actually have goals that they have met. Packed courts, secret police, concentration camps. They care about results.
Hell, a fucking bread tuber explained it perfectly 7 years ago.
They will watch liberal democracy burn before they take a single step outside of its "process" to protect it. They will side with the fascist over anyone that tries to resist them. The fascist after all will suddenly be very concerned about "the process" when the Democratic party voters start electing people with actual goals.
Well, they'll be very concerned about "the process being violated" in these suddenly very suspicious elections. The establishment Democrat politicians and the fascist Republicans will suddenly work together to stop "communist" or whatever.
It's happening now. The Democrats can't seem to love Fox News enough these days. Complaining about these damn DSA candidates.
How can people watch their beloved "liberals" go on Fox News day after day talking about how much of a threat a resistance to Trump and ICE are. Is anyone that is a lifelong Democrat actually believing this shit? They are showing you who they really are now. You don't even have to look hard.
I'd say the problem with liberals is they're class traitors, liars, and snakes. They don't mind that their largest donors are also raping and murdering innocent children with our tax dollars. Liberals break the law all the time. They don't mind bending process to fit their needs. They don't mind what Trump and the traitor republicans are doing, that's why they aren't breaking the process.
Agreed. The liberals politicians are very much willing to serve the interest of fascist at this point. I would say that their voting base is still stuck in the same mindset that they have been conditioned into believing though. "Just one more injunction that'll do it! We told them STOP IT!"
We are at a turning point though. The liberal voting base is electing socialist (in name at least). The liberal politicians will side with the fascist to stop it from gaining momentum. And, well, that will grow class consciousness within our society when it is inevitably obvious to even the dumbest liberals.
The worse thing that could happen. Is the DSA candidates are captured by political system itself and allowed to remain within it but never gain enough power. This is unfortunately the likely outcome.
My goal in DSA is gain enough momentum that the fascist and liberals are forced to show their faces. The liberals must be scratched to show they bleed as fascist. But I don't have delusions of a reform. It's why we cannot compromise with liberals. Their is no benefit to being captured by them.
I don't believe AOC will be a ground breaking president that would fundamentally change the flaws and move us towards socialism. But, I also don't think the liberals and fascist would even allow her to be elected. Which is exactly why I will be pushing for her come 2028. Her campaign is useful for propaganda that can grow class consciousness. And the more overwhelmingly we grow that and advertise it through the political process. The more people we'll have angry when the fascist and liberals work together and do not give up their power.
That's the best I can hope for at this point. And at that point, decades will happen in weeks. One way or another.
You probably already know how the history of liberalism developed, but it was developed during tumultuous periods in European history of constant warring due to differences in beliefs (as well criticism on government control on economy by mercantilism). So, modern day liberals have strong, almost co-dependence I would say, to sticking to "decorum" and "process" as you mentioned. I still see many liberals can't fathom the possibility of a far right entrenchment and afraid to even consider of taking up arms or a civil war against a tyrannical government. That being said, to be fair to the liberal American founding fathers, they recognise the possibility of a tyrannical government and included the second amendment as last resort. However, many liberals are afraid to even consider taking arms if it comes to it (which is understandable because of the previous civil war), and think the next midterm elections won't be interfered upon by Trump and his broligarchs.
97 Comments
WhoIzDisIz@lemmy.today · 136 pts · 20d
It's funny to think about, but also sobering to realize he's the best president Dems have had recently considering just how much he capitulated to Republicans after he got his signature ACA bill passed. I'll never forgive him for not putting up a fight with McConnell over his Supreme Court nominee.
tidderuuf@lemmy.world · 74 pts · 20d
His signature ACA bill that was so gutted and piecemealed together by the GOP that it was doomed to fail in every way possible.
We were gonna have universal healthcare and now we have $20k bills to pickup a dead child from your house.
Like it's so bad in the U.S. people are going to Mexico for medical care. Mexico!
Jordan117@lemmy.world · 30 pts · 20d
I was deep in the weeds of the ACA fight and this is not at all how it went down. Democrats had a filibuster-proof majority for only a few months altogether, and many in the caucus at the time were moderate red-state Democrats that didn't support a universal system. Hell, one of them, Joe Lieberman, had actively campaigned for John McCain and was on the shortlist to be his VP!
The ACA that passed via reconciliation was the most progressive possible version of it that could have passed; lose one senator or a couple of representatives in the final vote and it would have failed to pass (and arguably destroyed Obama's presidency in the process).
Tower@lemmy.zip · 17 pts · 20d
Obligatory Fuck Joe Lieberman.
NocturnalMorning@lemmy.world · 6 pts · 20d
Always a few senators who just couldn't possibly help their constituents. I wonder why...
protist@retrofed.com · 7 pts · 20d
While the ACA could have been much better in many ways that just weren't possible to get through the Senate, if you recall before that, there was pretty much no way at all to obtain any kind of insurance without getting it through an employer, and if you switched employers, your new employer's insurance could just tell you "sorry about that diabetes, we won't cover that since you had it before you started here." We would be in a much, much worse place right now without the ACA
StealthLizardDrop@piefed.social · 3 pts · 20d
Mexico should build a wall... ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡° )
Rivalarrival@lemmy.today · 11 pts · 20d
Bill Clinton instituted Don't Ask/Don't Tell in the 90s as a means of protecting homosexuals in the military. DADT basically meant that the military couldn't conduct investigations into a person's sexuality. They were allowed to prohibit homosexuality, but they could only act against a service member who openly indicated their homosexual preference.
DADT was horseshit from day one. The only redeeming characteristic of the policy was decriminalization of gays in the military. They could still be thrown out, but the policy quickly put an end to court martial and imprisonment of gay soldiers.
DADT was a compromise, a transitory policy that never should have been needed. It needed to be retired as soon as it was enacted, and it took decades to actually accomplish.
Obama's ACA is in a very similar position. It was horseshit from day one. It was a program designed and promoted by the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank, as opposition to various Universal Healthcare plans. It was designed from the outset to prop up the health insurance industry that desperately needed to be gutted.
It may have been the best that Obama could have achieved at the time, but it was disgustingly terrible, and the whole thing needs to be replaced with something that actually works.
Serinus@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 20d
Biden was better. He quietly got more done, and didn't play into their games.
Biden would have appointed the empty Supreme Court seat.
FlexibleToast@lemmy.world · 15 pts · 20d
Obama did appoint the empty Supreme Court seat. McConnell refused to bring it to the senate to affirm. I actually generally agree that Biden was better though, until he decided to run again. If he did what he said he was going to and became the bridge to the next generation he would be fondly remembered. Instead he'll be remembered as the person that enabled Trump's second term.
A_Wild_Alt_Appears@fedinsfw.app · 72 pts · 20d
I would really like to hope that someday we can do better than Obama. Being the best president in recent memory isn't an amazingly high bar and I'd really like to see a world where we have something better.
Especially with respect to foreign policy. And I know many folks don't connect with why that's a big deal, but one of my closest friends is Coptic and her people were targeted for ethnic cleansing by a militant faction in Egypt after Obama backed them, because our favorite foreign policy in the US is to back some militant group anytime what the government of a region is doing is even mildly inconvenient to us.
If you remember the men that Isis executed on the beach in video, in the first like beheading video that was a thing ages ago- those men were Copts. My friend has community members she considered family who are dead now back in Egypt. If I remember right she said the population dropped from like 15% of Egypt to 5% in a span of a handful of years.
The toll of horrifying american foreign policy is not just an abstract bogeyman leftist bring up to trash politicians you like, they have actual death tolls and leave behind people who are mourning. Its not even good foreign policy either, we're radicalized half the world to hate our guts, which as it turns out is not the most geopolitically advantageous.
ChunkMcHorkle@lemmy.world · 13 pts · 20d
Good comment. I agree with every word you said, just thought I'd point out for the random passerby that the Copts are one of the oldest Christian groups on the planet, said to have been introduced to Christianity by the apostle Mark -- as in the author of the Gospel of St. Mark -- himself.
I have known Copts myself, though not well, and was honored to visit one of their liturgical services many years ago: they are incredibly hospitable and welcoming people, and very kind to this stranger.
More people should be aware that what you are describing is a group of actual, sincere (and not just tediously performative) Christian people genuinely persecuted and dying for their religion by Isis, and also targeted by pseudo-Christians in US government for political expediency. And it goes unnoticed because few even know who the Copts are.
A_Wild_Alt_Appears@fedinsfw.app · 5 pts · 20d
Yeah she frequently expresses her bewilderment at american Christianity lol 😅
FoxtrotDeltaTango@sh.itjust.works · 4 pts · 19d
Wow, bruh that sucks. Thanks for sharing this info
mirshafie@europe.pub · -5 pts · 20d
Terror Tuesday was Obama's favorite day of the week. He kept doing it for 8 years. He murdered people on the basis of whether they urinated sitting down, or standing.
Obama is a piece of shit.
Passerby6497@lemmy.world · 9 pts · 20d
And he's still one of the best presidents in recent memory. Two things can be true at the same time.
BradleyUffner@lemmy.world · 7 pts · 20d
Given the strict choice between Obama and literally anyone running as a Republican, I would choose Obama every single time. No doubt, no hesitation. Every time.
ShaggySnacks@lemmy.myserv.one · 1 pts · 20d
Don't forget Obama also drone striked an American citizen, Anwar al-Awlaki. Fairly confident to say that targeting and killing an American citizen is the prime example of extra-judicial killing.
Sure, some people will be happy that an alleged terrorist was killed. However the legal justification by David J. Barron (Chief Legal Counsel) laid out the the groundwork for a future targeted extra-judicial killing of an American citizen.
You know who's currently in the US crosshairs? Trans people, leftists, immigrants, and anyone who's a non-White, cis, conservative, male.
BarneyPiccolo@lemmy.today · 1 pts · 19d
I was never bothered about killing an Al Qaeda leader who was enthusiastically committed to terrorism against innocent Americans. The fact that he was an American citizen (by dual citizenship) is irrelevant. He was a traitor by definition, and he got what he deserved, in a war that Al Qaeda started.
As an American citizen, if you choose to wage war against America, you lose out on the protections of American courts, and you get to deal with the military, instead.
bitwolf@sh.itjust.works · 40 pts · 20d
Honestly, I'd be a big brain move for him to parody Trump and announce his 2028 election run.
Then MAGA would either have to accept Obama, or state that they can't run for three terms. A response to which we can point to Trump.
Nollij@sopuli.xyz · 20 pts · 20d
They've already come up with a crackheaded, baseless explanation. They say that it only applies to 2 consecutive terms.
Logic isn't the play. They will say/do anything that gets them what they want. You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into in the first place.
logi@lemmy.world · 17 pts · 20d
So then Obama can run. Glad we settled that.
nickiwest@lemmy.world · 0 pts · 19d
No, their "logic" is that a president is eligible for re-election only until they serve two consecutive terms, after which point they are no longer eligible.
They have to create a system that allows Trump to run but won't allow Obama to run. He couldn't stand losing to Biden, and he obviously re-lives that loss every day, but he would actually implode if he lost to Obama. And everyone around him seems to have the job of "keep Dear Leader from imploding."
BarneyPiccolo@lemmy.today · 2 pts · 19d
"That's different, Obama's black."
SillyDude@lemmy.zip · 35 pts · 20d
I don't think most people on Lemmy are aware of how much of the far right conspiratards still believe that "the Kenyan" is actually still in charge. Even now, during Trump, everything bad is being done by Obama, the Manchurian candidate.
grue@lemmy.world · 14 pts · 20d
It's always projection.
PM_ME_VINTAGE_30S@anarchist.nexus · 28 pts · 20d
Fuck
, he's a war criminal, and you're demonstrating perfectly why even their own voters hate the Democrats and won't be voting for them in the future.
Saapas@piefed.zip · 7 pts · 20d
Still the best they've had in a long while
Viking_Hippie@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 11 pts · 20d
That's a ridiculously low bar, though.
That's like winning a spelling bee by being the only one to successfully spell "lamp".
Saapas@piefed.zip · 4 pts · 20d
That it is
Proprietary_Blend@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 20d
Nice
Weirdmusic@lemmy.world · -37 pts · 20d
carotte@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 34 pts · 20d
"obama is a war criminal"
"go kill yourself you [ableist slur]"
thank u for demonstrating to the class why you’re called blue maga
TrickDacy@lemmy.world · 0 pts · 20d
After seeing this term used for years, this is probably the first time it even slightly made any sense. There is no bLuE mAgA. Because the actual maga cult is several million people. Not like 3000 weirdos total.
rockSlayer@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 23 pts · 20d
Typical fucking liberal. Someone (correctly) criticizes Obama's war crimes, so you call them an ableist slur and tell them to kill themself.
Do better.
PM_ME_VINTAGE_30S@anarchist.nexus · 13 pts · 20d
athatet@lemmy.zip · 10 pts · 20d
Slurs fucking suuuck
Proprietary_Blend@lemmy.world · -1 pts · 20d
busy motorway?
crystalmerchant@lemmy.world · 22 pts · 20d
Lmao I definitely don't want Obama back for multiple reasons.
Zannsolo@lemmy.world · 10 pts · 19d
Is take Obama over Trump or newsome. I'd prefer AOC though
FoxtrotDeltaTango@sh.itjust.works · 6 pts · 19d
Honestly I too would take Obama again at this point, heck I would vote for the great khan Pritzker and hunter Biden at this point
Squirrelanna@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 1 pts · 19d
The nomadic warriors approve this message.
VitoRobles@lemmy.today · 7 pts · 19d
It's just here to piss off the MAGAs.
I would love it if the Lincoln Project was the one who started it. Theyre conservatives who fucking hate Trump.
boaratio@lemmy.world · 22 pts · 19d
I'll never forgive Obama for having a 60 vote majority in the Senate, and then passing the limp dick affordable care act. We could have single payer health care, but he just couldn't resist the lobbying money from the insurance industry.
Also, first extrajudicial killing of an American citizen. Also, enabling seal team 6 to commit countless atrocities and war crimes. Also, continuing to be milquetoast for 6 more years just to not make Republicans feel butt hurt.
Barack Obama is the poster child for "vote blue no matter who." I'm fucking sick of hearing about how he was a good president.
FudgyMcTubbs@lemmy.world · 8 pts · 19d
He was a good president, **by comparison to Dubya and Reagan and Nixon and Truman. ** But everything you say is true. All presidents commit countless atrocities and are compromised. Unfortunately, a guy like Mr. Rogers has no interest in being president, and the majority of people don't see the big picture and wouldn't vote for him.
When it comes to the majority of voters, you've got to remember that these are just simple farmers. These are people of the land. The common clay of the new West. You know -- morons.
Nomecks@lemmy.ca · -1 pts · 18d
If you think he had 60 votes for single payer then you don't know much about the US government
boaratio@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 18d
There were 60 democrats in the Senate. He had that for almost 2 years. I've worked with the US government, have been at the beck and call of the US government, and know how, sadly, it works. When Barack Obama had a senate super majority, he could have passed anything he wanted. Buuuuuuuuuut, the lobbyists won.
Nomecks@lemmy.ca · -1 pts · 18d
He "Had 60 Democrats" on paper only. There's a 0% chance he had 60 votes to do anything really revolutionary. Enough Dems are on the payroll to make sure there's never any real reform.
boaratio@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 18d
They passed the ACA along party lines. He had the votes. Imagine how fucked w'ed be if Republicans had a 60 vote majority.
Edit: I'm not a Republican or Republican supporter, but whenever they can seize the wheels of power they do it. Democrats never do anything even when they have the advantage because they don't want to disrupt "social norms." When was the last time Republicans had a super majority and laid down to Democrats just to keep things fair?
I'm fucking sick of this both sides shit. Both parties are bad, but the Republicans are amazing at playing the long game. Where is the Democrat project 2025 or heritage foundation? Now we're all fucked thanks to that. Which btw, the Republicans never deserve to drink at the fire hose of the heritage foundation. It's just evil fueled with evil.
I hate it here.
Nomecks@lemmy.ca · 1 pts · 18d
They passed the ACA by having to negotiate with DINOs like Joe Liberman:
https://www.npr.org/2009/12/15/121452544/democrats-trade-off-to-get-60-health-care-votes
The negotiation inside the Dems was as bad or worse than the one with the Republicans. They didn't have 60 votes for single payer or any other real change.
Democrats have never been able to vote as a unified bloc like the Republicans do. It's easy to unite when your banner is something simple like "Democrats bad, Obama bad." When it's a complex issue like Healthcare and you're dealing with people with different agendas it gets a lot harder. Especially when politicians are mostly bought and paid for as a feature of western democracy.
boaratio@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 18d
Thanks for sharing the link. I fucking hate politicians. Also, I nearly forgot the word "blogosphere" existed.
tomkatt@lemmy.world · 18 pts · 19d
No third term presidents. At all. I don't care who it is.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twenty-second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
drcabbage@lemmy.ml · 3 pts · 19d
It says you can't be "elected" a third time. Nothing about just taking it.
I don't think enough people are paying attention to that word....
LodeMike@lemmy.today · 1 pts · 18d
There's extremely little way to become president other than being elected. Additionally there's limits on becoming president based on previous time served.
ChetManly@lemmy.world · 14 pts · 20d
No thanks. Not another centrist.
bloogoose@lemmy.zip · 6 pts · 20d
ChetManly@lemmy.world · 5 pts · 20d
Between the two? That's easy, one is a fascist the other is not. I'm not happy about the DNC suicide pact, vote for us or else, but there are lots of other elections to address that.
wheezy@lemmy.ml · 5 pts · 20d
If that happens; we all just [redacted] our landlords and see what happens after that.
dactylotheca@suppo.fi · 2 pts · 20d
Yeah, no you won't
LostCarcosan@lemmy.today · 1 pts · 19d
It's been time already to do that. Why don't you get started and I'll catch up.
Malyca@lemmy.zip · 12 pts · 20d
Michelle would leave and he loves her a whole lot more than he loves the rest of us.
DagwoodIII@piefed.social · 4 pts · 20d
You realize that Michelle could run?
Malyca@lemmy.zip · 2 pts · 20d
🤣 I doubt there's something she'd like to do less. I could see her doing it for the "greater good", but I imagine it would be difficult for her.
ColeSloth@discuss.tchncs.de · 12 pts · 20d
Mr political middle compromiser?
FrostyTheDoo@lemmy.world · 19 pts · 20d
I think it's about the trolling, not truly wanting Obama back in the seat.
ShaggySnacks@lemmy.myserv.one · 8 pts · 20d
I will gladly support the trolling.
daniskarma@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 11 pts · 20d
The last US president who could actually spoke a full coherent phrase.
Peppycito@sh.itjust.works · 10 pts · 20d
You would said that?
BarneyPiccolo@lemmy.today · 1 pts · 19d
khepri@lemmy.world · 8 pts · 19d
Yeah no thanks, he was the best president of my life but that ain't saying much. He still had way too many major fuckups, killed way too many people, and had too many betrayals of the progressive ideals that got him the job in the first place. Besides that isn't constitutionally possible but whatevs.
BarneyPiccolo@lemmy.today · 0 pts · 19d
Thing is, I knew it from the start. I was disappointed, but only that ALL my predictions came true. When Obama walked out to that screaming crowd with his family after winning, and everybody thought America was entering a new era, I KNEW that it was all a con, and he'd be just as "effective" as Clinton, and the Buahes, and nothing much would change, and it didn't.
All those milquetoast presidents from both sides were just softening us up for the real monster who would overthrow America for the Sociopathic Oligarchs.
khepri@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 19d
yeah, sort of like how the stock market always spikes right before it crashes, you gotta give people just enough that they can convince themselves everything is going to be great, right up until the last second in order to do a proper rug pull.
EntheoNaut@lemmy.ml · -2 pts · 19d
Who tf care what you knew and predicted.
How is that relevant to any of us? How does you knowing anything at have any consequence or value to the conversations?
Stopped reading after first two sentences, which were about whatever your selfish sense of self worth and knowledge.
BarneyPiccolo@lemmy.today · 0 pts · 18d
I offered my perspective, which is the entire point of this entire forum. Who are you to think you can be the self-appointed Lemmy Topic Sheriff, and decide whose posts are worthy of attention? I read 10 times more irrelevant comments than relevant comments, but I don't waste my time telling those people to stop posting.
How arrogant and gross. Ew.
bufalo1973@piefed.social · 8 pts · 20d
Imagine this with the other Obama. A black woman that the MAGAts hate, on the Dems primaries.
absGeekNZ@lemmy.nz · 8 pts · 19d
No no no. Not Bring Back America.
Bring Back Competence, Obama's smiling face with BBC in big bold lettering under it.
RedditAdminsSuckIt@lemmy.world · 7 pts · 19d
Jumbie@lemmy.zip · 7 pts · 20d
I propose the Bring Back America Campaign. The acronym works even better.
BlackLaZoR@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 20d
Then another 2008 hits
BarneyPiccolo@lemmy.today · 1 pts · 19d
Bush caused 2008, and Obama did a masterful job of pulling America out of it. I thought it would take 20 years to recover, but Obama did it in about 2.
BlackLaZoR@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 19d
Into biggest public debt increase in US history.
BarneyPiccolo@lemmy.today · 1 pts · 18d
To fix an entirely Republican economic crash, the worst since the Great Depression. Blame the people who caused that debt increase, not the people who were repairing the problem.
MilitantAtheist@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 19d
Y'all are funny, acting like there will ever be a fair election in the US without a second civil war.
Fredthefishlord@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 3 pts · 19d
Politely, do you think suggesting a president should run for a third term is remotely acting like the election will be fair?
Abyssian@lemmy.world · 0 pts · 20d
"We're bringin' sexy b(l)ack.... those lame ass kiddy touchers won't know how to act..."
RabbitBBQ@lemmy.world · -2 pts · 20d
We could agree to ignore the 22nd amendment for just 2028
Tempus_Fugit@lemmy.world · -25 pts · 20d
Ah yes, let's do the same thing we hate Trump for doing, breaking the law. Just liberal things
wheezy@lemmy.ml · 19 pts · 20d
Ironically, the problem with liberals is their absolute obsession with "process". It's why they are hopeless in the face of fascism. They see the fascist breaking the process, ignoring it, laughing in their faces. But will not "go down to their level".
It's not something unexpected. Obama and his "legacy". His legacy is Trump. His absolute failure as a president in the face of massive in equality, endless wars, and civil rights. Of course the liberals loved him. He did everything by the books, reached across the aisle, and left things to the absolute failure of a candidate that was Hillary Clinton. But they happily followed the "process" let themselves be blocked by a party over and over that did not care about it.
Say what you will about the Republicans. But, they actually have goals that they have met. Packed courts, secret police, concentration camps. They care about results.
Hell, a fucking bread tuber explained it perfectly 7 years ago.
https://youtu.be/MAbab8aP4_A
They will watch liberal democracy burn before they take a single step outside of its "process" to protect it. They will side with the fascist over anyone that tries to resist them. The fascist after all will suddenly be very concerned about "the process" when the Democratic party voters start electing people with actual goals.
Well, they'll be very concerned about "the process being violated" in these suddenly very suspicious elections. The establishment Democrat politicians and the fascist Republicans will suddenly work together to stop "communist" or whatever.
It's happening now. The Democrats can't seem to love Fox News enough these days. Complaining about these damn DSA candidates.
How can people watch their beloved "liberals" go on Fox News day after day talking about how much of a threat a resistance to Trump and ICE are. Is anyone that is a lifelong Democrat actually believing this shit? They are showing you who they really are now. You don't even have to look hard.
Tempus_Fugit@lemmy.world · 11 pts · 20d
I'd say the problem with liberals is they're class traitors, liars, and snakes. They don't mind that their largest donors are also raping and murdering innocent children with our tax dollars. Liberals break the law all the time. They don't mind bending process to fit their needs. They don't mind what Trump and the traitor republicans are doing, that's why they aren't breaking the process.
wheezy@lemmy.ml · 7 pts · 20d
Agreed. The liberals politicians are very much willing to serve the interest of fascist at this point. I would say that their voting base is still stuck in the same mindset that they have been conditioned into believing though. "Just one more injunction that'll do it! We told them STOP IT!"
We are at a turning point though. The liberal voting base is electing socialist (in name at least). The liberal politicians will side with the fascist to stop it from gaining momentum. And, well, that will grow class consciousness within our society when it is inevitably obvious to even the dumbest liberals.
The worse thing that could happen. Is the DSA candidates are captured by political system itself and allowed to remain within it but never gain enough power. This is unfortunately the likely outcome.
My goal in DSA is gain enough momentum that the fascist and liberals are forced to show their faces. The liberals must be scratched to show they bleed as fascist. But I don't have delusions of a reform. It's why we cannot compromise with liberals. Their is no benefit to being captured by them.
I don't believe AOC will be a ground breaking president that would fundamentally change the flaws and move us towards socialism. But, I also don't think the liberals and fascist would even allow her to be elected. Which is exactly why I will be pushing for her come 2028. Her campaign is useful for propaganda that can grow class consciousness. And the more overwhelmingly we grow that and advertise it through the political process. The more people we'll have angry when the fascist and liberals work together and do not give up their power.
That's the best I can hope for at this point. And at that point, decades will happen in weeks. One way or another.
TankovayaDiviziya@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 20d
You probably already know how the history of liberalism developed, but it was developed during tumultuous periods in European history of constant warring due to differences in beliefs (as well criticism on government control on economy by mercantilism). So, modern day liberals have strong, almost co-dependence I would say, to sticking to "decorum" and "process" as you mentioned. I still see many liberals can't fathom the possibility of a far right entrenchment and afraid to even consider of taking up arms or a civil war against a tyrannical government. That being said, to be fair to the liberal American founding fathers, they recognise the possibility of a tyrannical government and included the second amendment as last resort. However, many liberals are afraid to even consider taking arms if it comes to it (which is understandable because of the previous civil war), and think the next midterm elections won't be interfered upon by Trump and his broligarchs.
athatet@lemmy.zip · 2 pts · 20d
I promise you that this is not the reason that I hate trump.
Tempus_Fugit@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 20d
Trump breaking the law doesn't make you hate him? I don't understand.
athatet@lemmy.zip · 6 pts · 20d
I hate him cause he’s a rapist and a murderer and a shit head.
Tempus_Fugit@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 20d
We have laws against all that.
athatet@lemmy.zip · 2 pts · 20d
And I would hate him for those reasons regardless of what the law says about it.
brown567@sh.itjust.works · 1 pts · 20d
Not the shithead part, but it's still not a great presidential attribute
Hated@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 20d
TrickDacy@lemmy.world · 0 pts · 20d
EvErYtHiNg I DoNt lIkE iS LiBeRaL
Tempus_Fugit@lemmy.world · 7 pts · 20d
Is Obama not liberal?
TrickDacy@lemmy.world · -1 pts · 20d
I didn't realize he made this post