Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I would say that FDR had Obama's speaking style and charisma (especially on the radio) but he had Bernie Sanders ideals. Basically Obama spoke well but he lacked the actual vision and/or he lacked the political skills and experience to get his ideals into action.
So basically I see FDR as a combination of the best of Bernie Sanders and Barrack Obama. The establishment candidate, Hillary Clinton and her blind minions, were the opposite of what FDR stood for. For instance, I cannot imagine FDR calling half of America, mostly working class or rural folks, uneducated or deplorables.
I consider the political reality represented by the way the GOP and the other powers that be fought against Obama and the Democrats to pass health care legislation, and I tend to think it was not that Obama lacked vision or political skills. Obama lacked a Congress that would allow the progress Obama was trying to achieve. No amount of vision, skill or speaking ability can overcome the likes of so many in Congress hijacked by the Tea Party that is essentially no way no how when it comes to anything involving more government rather than less.
Were those who supported Hillary, "blind?" Or were they quite aware of the stark political choice that ultimately became either Hillary or Trump? Obviously the answer depends on who you ask...
Did Hillary mean that "half of America" were deplorable. "Mostly working class or rural folks, uneducated..."
I really don't think so, but there again, all depends on who you ask and what they tend to hear. What they want to believe. What Hillary actually said was the following:
"We are living in a volatile political environment. You know, to just be grossly generalistic, you could put half of Trump's supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables. Right? The racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamaphobic -- you name it. And unfortunately there are people like that. And he has lifted them up. He has given voice to their websites that used to only have 11,000 people -- now 11 million. He tweets and retweets their offensive hateful mean-spirited rhetoric. Now, some of those folks -- they are irredeemable, but thankfully they are not America."
Was Obama better than Bush in Iraq? Sure. Did he live up to his promises? No.
He was also far worse in Libya and Syria.
I'm a numbers guy, not one to judge in terms of absolutes but rather in relative terms.
No need to keep insisting on your "yes or no" way of looking at things, "did or didn't." Not with me anyway, because I think more in terms of better or worse. Politics, war is rarely if ever any sort of absolute success or failure in absolute terms.
Americans KIA in Iraq has come to a total of almost 5,000. Not quite 40 have been killed in Iraq since 2012.
The number of U.S. military forces in Iraq peaked at 170,300 in November 2007, before Obama took office.
The number of U.S. military forces in Iraq today is now under 5,000, and no longer Obama's responsibility.
Those are the straight numbers, the source of my opinion/assessment regarding Obama's performance in this regard.
As to why we still have American troops in Iraq and other places around the world, that's another host of complications I don't think you have the inclination to consider. I agree, however, our foreign policy is not perfect, never has been, but I must also admit, I have far less information and knowledge to judge with absolute confidence I know better than any given POTUS with all the additional information and knowledge they have at their disposal.
Status:
"everybody getting reported now.."
(set 17 days ago)
Location: Pine Grove,AL
29,543 posts, read 16,528,077 times
Reputation: 6029
Quote:
Originally Posted by LINative
No to what?
You said Obama lacked skill and/or experience. He lacked neither, what he didnt have is an absolute majority and political clout over those who were against him.
FDR could do things no other president could because he alone was the reason many others were even in office
at the height of the Democratic Pary under FDR there wee 75 Democratic Senators, 334 Representatives, and 41 governorships.
Anyone who thinks Obama looks better is likely clueless about anything and everything concerning him, or.. an out and out liar.
Making statements like this, accusations, without any substantiation or explanation whatsoever is more evidence of cluelessness as far as most reasonable people are concerned, and that's no lie.
Surely you -- most anyone with informed reasoned opinion -- can do better...
FDR did something I'll NEVER forgive him for and, that was putting Americans in concentration camps over something they had NO control over.
Difficult, no doubt. Even still today there are many who can hardly forgive those who insist on racism, xenophobia, homophobia, but we've still got a long way to go in these many respects. For the POTUS to demonstrate backwardness rather than the political fortitude that might help lead toward overcoming such injustices is always a matter of serious concern, much like many have about Trump still to this day.
Who do we NEVER forgive for these wrong-doings? Not sure, but when I consider the issues of the day, the context of the history, like our founding fathers who were slave owners, I suspect most Americans have little choice but to forgive the unforgivable of our history. Or maybe not forgive but move on, make progress...
How are either Hillary Clinton or Martin O'Malley bought off ?
Is this a serious question, or maybe a trick question?
You don't raise millions of dollars from campaign donors, speaking fees, $5,000 plate dinners, without a sense of obligation toward those putting those dollars in your pocket, without lending them a welcoming ear, without maybe the return of favorable legislation, maybe a government post, less scrutiny of your business, your industry...
"Let me count the ways..."
Quid pro quo: a favor or advantage granted or expected in return for something.
Quid pro quo is as much a part of politics as is the air politicians breath and use to make speeches...
No, FDR had 322 Democrats in the House and 70 in the Senate. (and remember that we had 2 less states back then). when he started putting together the new deal.
He had an absolute majority and the political capital to use it.
FDR won some congressional districts by 50% more than its congressional candidate did. Everyone rode his coattails and he wasnt afraid to back primary challengers.
Good point that reminds me of the votes GW got to invade Iraq, and of course we all know how "forgivable" that was now that we know Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11 and not much in the way of WMD either. Yet, I recall only one Senator in Congress who did not vote to invade Iraq...
Status:
"everybody getting reported now.."
(set 17 days ago)
Location: Pine Grove,AL
29,543 posts, read 16,528,077 times
Reputation: 6029
Quote:
Originally Posted by LearnMe
Is this a serious question, or maybe a trick question?
You don't raise millions of dollars from campaign donors, speaking fees, $5,000 plate dinners, without a sense of obligation toward those putting those dollars in your pocket, without lending them a welcoming ear, without maybe the return of favorable legislation, maybe a government post, less scrutiny of your business, your industry...
"Let me count the ways..."
Quid pro quo: a favor or advantage granted or expected in return for something.
Quid pro quo is as much a part of politics as is the air politicians breath and use to make speeches...
But by that definition, every politician is vulnerable to it. Are you forgetting that the RNC and Trump raised just as much as Clinton did ??????
And before you claim they didnt, remember that that the DNC and Clinton overlap in fundraising as they had a joint venture.
At best, your argument is that she took money to speak to people, which the lecture circuit existed long before Hillary Clinton. thats not proof of wrong doing , let alone corruption.
Last edited by dsjj251; 05-22-2017 at 10:54 AM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
