Barack Obama's legacy: Top 10 achievements

156 posts / 0 new
Last post
Unionist
Barack Obama's legacy: Top 10 achievements

*

Issues Pages: 
Unionist

Ok, I got stuck at Achievement #0.

 

Unionist

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

 

Aristotleded24

[url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=34hof0bnkC4]First black President and that's it[/url]

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

He did pardon many non-violent drug offenders and he did try to pass health care reform. He was very much handcuffed by the obsctructionist Repugnicans for 8 years. If anyone deserves blame for the absence of progress since his Presidency,it's the right wing insurgency called the Republican Party.

Unionist

alan smithee wrote:

He did pardon many non-violent drug offenders ...

Oh, I don't really think so. He commuted sentences. Example: Tim Tyler, sentenced to life at age 25, in 1993, for possession of LSD "with intent to deliver", had his sentence commuted by Obama. He is now set for release on August 31, 2018. Yes, you read that right. Conditional upon enrolling in "residential drug treament". Yes, you read that right also. I haven't researched all Obama's commutations, but that example is enough to hope that compassionate people like us should not spread stories painting Obama as being one of us. He is not.

Quote:
...and he did try to pass health care reform. 

No he didn't. Lyndon Johnson did - he passed single-payer universal health care coverage for persons over 65. Obama never proposed single payer, let alone "try" to pass it. The last time he maybe said anything public in favour of it was 2003 (yes, you read that right - and that's just a maybe). Here's a detailed account of his deceit and inertia on that front.

Oh and by the way, if U.S. presidents are so impotent that they can't make a single move without controlling Congress, why does anyone give a crap about who won the latest election?

In fact, Obama could have done lots - single payer, gun control, you name it - had he 1) cared; and 2) used the powers that the president actually has. Example: vetoing everything Congress passed until he got his way, with the overwhelming support of the population. Whoops, that sounds gutsy. Obama is a craven coward.

 

ikosmos ikosmos's picture

1. The Drone President killed more people - I mean civilians, wedding parties, blushing brides, etc. - with this impersonal killing technology than all his predecessors combined;

2. The "Yes We Scan" President presided over the development and expansion of the most remarkable police state in the history of the world, putting even the dreaded Stazi of the GDR to shame;

3. The Presidential enemy of Whistleblowers harassed, hounded, imprisoned more Whistleblowers than all his predecessors combined, shaming the USA by having an American citizen seek refugee status in .... Russia!

4. The Wall Street President, rather than help African Americans, and others, cruelly crushed under the boot of the Wall Street collapse, poured trillions of dollar$ into bailing out his Wall Street sponsors, and jettisoning his countrymen and women ....

5. During the watch of the first African American President, police in the USA went on a killing spree, blowing away THOUSANDS of Americans since the atrocity in Ferguson, MO, accompanized by the horrific militarization of the police across the land ...

That's just off the top of my head. Feel free to add.

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

Well,if you think Obama was bad,wait until the Trump Administration takes over.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2016/03/30/president-obama-has-now-commu...

You can say it's very little and not enough but it's more than the Trump Admistration will do. In fact once they pass a national stop and frisk policy,many,many more non-violent drug offenders will be imprisoned.

You don't knw what you got til it's gone

 

 

Unionist

Aristotleded24 wrote:

First black President and that's it

Wow, just noticed that, thanks A24! Sums up my views precisely, but Michael Moore got it right two years ago.

 

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

I don't want to do ten but I think his major contribution to American political culture will be his institutionalization of extra-judicial killings of anyone on the planet. I like the weekly routine of a specific time for deciding who dies because some spook deems them guilty. I am sure his successors will love the rush as much as he does.

josh

Cut the unemployment rate by more than half.

The Iran agreement.

Unfroze relations with Cuba.

Sean in Ottawa

I am not as harsh as some on Obama. Perhaps it is also about expectations.

I do not think that anyone who could get to that office in that country with the politcs of that place (with and without GOP domination of the Senate and House) would be any better.

I don't think that they can do better.

In that context Obama is largely as good as they were going to get and now they will see what the other end looks like.

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

josh wrote:

Cut the unemployment rate by more than half.

The Iran agreement.

Unfroze relations with Cuba.

Don't try to change the narrative with facts.

6079_Smith_W

Really? I mean, I know it would blow your lefty cred to say so, but not even the Iran Nuclear Agreement?

http://washingtonmonthly.com/magazine/marchapril-2012/obamas-top-50-acco...

It used to be only evangelical Christians got off on hastening the end times, no matter not much people got hurt. If the number of revolutionaries cheering on Donald Trump is any indication, they are now getting a run for their money. So of course Obama is bad bad bad, going to worse worse worse, which is good news, I guess:

http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/its_worse_than_you_think_20161111

Unionist

josh wrote:

Cut the unemployment rate by more than half.

You mean, after it more than doubled after his inauguration?

 

Given time, Obama might get the rate down to George Bush levels.

Quote:
The Iran agreement.

Good one - yes, I'll grant you that.

Quote:
Unfroze relations with Cuba.

Unless he lifts the embargo before Trump's coronation, zero points for that one. "Relations" mean nothing to me or Cubans, except infiltration.

6079_Smith_W

Two years ago he called on congress to lift the embargo.

I don't like all the shit he has done either, but let's remember he has been fighting on two fronts.

 

Unionist

6079_Smith_W wrote:

Two years ago he called on congress to lift the embargo.

Yeah, here was the vote in the U.N. General Assembly on Oct. 26, 2016 to end the embargo:

United States: ABSTAIN

Israel: ABSTAIN

All 191 other countries: YES.

This was "historic", because in all the other years of his reign (2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, and 2015), the U.S. voted NO.

Congress didn't agree to change the U.S. vote to ABSTAIN. So what stopped Obama from instructing his delegation to vote YES? And to instruct the Israelis, while he was at it (oh wait, he had already signed off on their $38 billion in arms aid for the next 10 years - whoops, bad timing).

 

6079_Smith_W

A vote to condemn, that carried zero weight. I am sure that would have persuaded congress to change their minds.

 

Aristotleded24

ikosmos wrote:
The Drone President killed more people - I mean civilians, wedding parties, blushing brides, etc. - with this impersonal killing technology than all his predecessors combined;

And that's the real reason that there haven't been as many bodies coming back in caskets under Obama as Bush. The Pentagon had long been involved in researching high-tech robotic weapon systems, and the technology bore fruit under Obama. Had Bush been able to run for more than 2 terms and was still the President, we would be seeing the exact same scenario playing out overseas.

Aristotleded24

Paul Jay commented during the [url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XZ_SBvwyW7E]2010 mid-term elections about how Obama[/url] allowed the Republicans to rebrand themselves and come back, and I think Tuesday was a continuation of that trend. Jay's list includes:

Quote:
1) Allowed Republicans to rebrand as populist

2) Old mindset to US foreign policy

3) Not defending the public option for health care reform

4) Not using the Auto bailout to build a green economy

5) Bailing out bankers and not the banking system

6) Not investigating Bush and Cheney for criminal actions while in office

Aristotleded24

josh wrote:
Cut the unemployment rate by more than half.

People either gave up in desparation or ended up getting jobs that paid much lower than they were before. In both cases, when that happens you are no longer officially counted as "unemployed."

Unionist

6079_Smith_W wrote:

A vote to condemn, that carried zero weight. I am sure that would have persuaded congress to change their minds.

Correct. Poor impotent president, can't do anything without Congress. That's why he can't even vote his "heart" but has to abstain. Your logic is utterly overwhelming. How about my explanation? He's the abject servant of the U.S. ruling classes. Stands up better to the evidence.

josh

Unionist wrote:

josh wrote:

Cut the unemployment rate by more than half.

You mean, after it more than doubled after his inauguration?

 

Given time, Obama might get the rate down to George Bush levels.

Quote:
The Iran agreement.

Good one - yes, I'll grant you that.

Quote:
Unfroze relations with Cuba.

Unless he lifts the embargo before Trump's coronation, zero points for that one. "Relations" mean nothing to me or Cubans, except infiltration.


He took over months after a financial collapse and a deep recession began. 600,000 job losses a month when he took over,

Unionist

Aristotleded24 wrote:

Paul Jay commented during the [url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XZ_SBvwyW7E]2010 mid-term elections about how Obama[/url] allowed the Republicans to rebrand themselves and come back, and I think Tuesday was a continuation of that trend. 

I love Paul Jay - don't recall seeing this at the time - is it ever worth sharing today! Now I've got to check The Real News network to see if he's got anything as powerful as that. Thanks again, A24!

 

6079_Smith_W

Unionist wrote:

Poor impotent president, can't do anything without Congress.

Right.

Our Mr, Harper was so much more competent in sidestepping parliament, using the unelected senate to override bills passed in the house, ignoring motions of contempt and concentrating power in the PMO.

So much better than playing by the books.

 

ygtbk

I can't believe no-one has mentioned the Nobel Peace Prize yet.

6079_Smith_W

That would be on the rest of them, since no one honestly sees it as an achievement.

Unionist

6079_Smith_W wrote:

Unionist wrote:

Poor impotent president, can't do anything without Congress.

Right.

Our Mr, Harper was so much more competent in sidestepping parliament, using the unelected senate to override bills passed in the house, ignoring motions of contempt and concentrating power in the PMO.

So much better than playing by the books.

 

I told you what he could have done. After (pick one) Sandy Hook, he could have said: "I'm vetoing all money bills until Congress passes some feeble version of gun control. Go ahead, override me, and then watch what else I can do!" By the book. The elected president using his constitutional powers. The vast majority of USians would have supported him (yes, they would). 

Your Harper analogy is interesting. Harper had nerve, Obama is a craven coward. And that's to Obama's credit? Beg to differ. As for Harper overriding this or that? Did he do something unlawful? He was once found in contempt of Parliament - and the craven cowards of the Official Opposition, Liberals, and BQ all let him get away with it. 

Obama ought not to be forgotten. His disastrous failures should be remembered, and lessons learned.

ygtbk
JKR

Unionist wrote:

In fact, Obama could have done lots - single payer, gun control, you name it - had he 1) cared; and 2) used the powers that the president actually has. Example: vetoing everything Congress passed until he got his way, with the overwhelming support of the population. Whoops, that sounds gutsy. Obama is a craven coward.

 

I don't think Obama had the overwhelming support of the population as almost half of the voters voted for McCain and then Romney and for most of Obama's time in office the Republicans controlled Congress.

SeekingAPolitic...

There others more knowledgable about social issue on rabble I  will them speak on social issues. My strengths are political economic relam.

 

From the capitilist point of view did his job well.  Consumers went and spent money they did not have thruogh credit so we muted recovery and expansion.  The no collaspe of the bubble economy which seems most anglo americans rely on for growth- thats a plus in a way.  The bubble did not collaspe on his watch.  Productivity and capital investment were poor that only matters after bubble crash. 

http://inequality.org/racial-inequality/

http://inequality.org/income-inequality/

http://inequality.org/wealth-inequality/

I acknowldege this was not all obamas fault but he was the leader so the buck stops with him.

 

 

 

6079_Smith_W

ygtbk wrote:

Here's something a little more in the hagiography

Given the tenor of this conversation, more like someone who didn't dare to be a revolutionary saint and end it all by burning down congress and the white house, and turning everything over to the masses.

Since Harper is now someone to be praised for his nerve, and all. Not quite as gutsy as arresting all the communist members in order to secure a majority, but it did show he knew how to get stuff done.

 

 

 

 

 

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

JKR wrote:
Unionist wrote:

In fact, Obama could have done lots - single payer, gun control, you name it - had he 1) cared; and 2) used the powers that the president actually has. Example: vetoing everything Congress passed until he got his way, with the overwhelming support of the population. Whoops, that sounds gutsy. Obama is a craven coward.

 

I don't think Obama had the overwhelming support of the population as almost half of the voters voted for McCain and then Romney and for most of Obama's time in office the Republicans controlled Congress.

There's that fallacy again, only about 25% of the voters vote Republican. Almost half the voters did not vote. 

6079_Smith_W

... in other words, he had even less support, so JKR is still correct.

(though many of those who wanted to vote were denied the right)

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

6079_Smith_W wrote:

... in other words, he had even less support, so JKR is still correct.

(though many of those who wanted to vote were denied the right)

Actually the polls showed that Americans support healthcare and therefore it is right to say that Obama would have had the support of the majority. The question in a system where nearly half the people don't vote is what issues will get people to vote for you. It looked like if Bernie could have made int through the Democratic Minefield Primaries he had the potential to get new voters to the polls just as Obama did in his first campaign.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/191504/majority-support-idea-fed-funded-healt...

JKR

Unionist wrote:

6079_Smith_W wrote:

Unionist wrote:

Poor impotent president, can't do anything without Congress.

Right.

Our Mr, Harper was so much more competent in sidestepping parliament, using the unelected senate to override bills passed in the house, ignoring motions of contempt and concentrating power in the PMO.

So much better than playing by the books.

 

I told you what he could have done. After (pick one) Sandy Hook, he could have said: "I'm vetoing all money bills until Congress passes some feeble version of gun control. Go ahead, override me, and then watch what else I can do!" By the book. The elected president using his constitutional powers. The vast majority of USians would have supported him (yes, they would). 

Your Harper analogy is interesting. Harper had nerve, Obama is a craven coward. And that's to Obama's credit? Beg to differ. As for Harper overriding this or that? Did he do something unlawful? He was once found in contempt of Parliament - and the craven cowards of the Official Opposition, Liberals, and BQ all let him get away with it. 

Obama ought not to be forgotten. His disastrous failures should be remembered, and lessons learned.

If Obama refused to sign money bills the Republicans would just let America's economy grind to a halt and then blame Obama for not signing perfectly good money bills.

I think within their political systems, U.S. presidents have much less power than Canadian prime ministers. I think for a president to have as much power as a prime minister who leads a majority government, the American head of state would need their party to have a majority in the House of Representatives and a 2/3rds majority in the U.S. Senate.

quizzical

we'll soon find out if this is true jkr....

JKR

I think Trump's power is limited by America's separation of powers but being in control of all 3 branches of government has given the Republicans enormous power. So the U.S. Republican party has more power over their government than the Liberal party has over our government. If Mitch McConnell, Paul Ryan, Mark Pence, and Donald Trump can work well together they will be able to considerably change the U.S. The Republicans will also likely be able to stack their Supreme Court with far-right judges. So sad. :(

It looks like the Democrats also won more votes than the Republicans in the Senate and House elections. So the party that came in second place will have complete control while the party that came in first place will have no power at all. So much for democracy. And to top it off Trump was the one complaining that the system was rigged against him.

quizzical

lies as truth truth as lies

Unionist

JKR wrote:
Unionist wrote:

In fact, Obama could have done lots - single payer, gun control, you name it - had he 1) cared; and 2) used the powers that the president actually has. Example: vetoing everything Congress passed until he got his way, with the overwhelming support of the population. Whoops, that sounds gutsy. Obama is a craven coward.

 

I don't think Obama had the overwhelming support of the population as almost half of the voters voted for McCain and then Romney and for most of Obama's time in office the Republicans controlled Congress.

Read more carefully, please. I said that if, in the wake of that massacre (or any of countless others), Obama had taken an immediate and dramatic stand for gun control, he would have had the overwhelming support of the population. He didn't. Instead, he pronounced hypocritical words of mourning and distress, then did absolutely nothing. Didn't even try. Not even a failed bill supported by him. Same reason Clinton lost. They're not on the side of the people, and even have trouble pretending to be.

Your thesis is that U.S. presidents can't do much. So don't worry about Trump. Just make up your mind with an emphasis on consistency.

 

Unionist

JKR wrote:

If Obama refused to sign money bills the Republicans would just let America's economy grind to a halt and then blame Obama for not signing perfectly good money bills.

Oh, what a brilliant strategy. The Repbulicans would "blame Obama" - a lame duck president. And then what - Obama would be overthrown? Assassinated? Publicly shamed? And the masters whom the Republicans serve - they'd be fine with the economy grinding to a halt just to teach Obama a lesson about the second amendment? Your posts are too intelligent to let a ridiculous thesis like this slip by. 

If Obama had a shred of principle and human dignity, he would have done exactly what I just said. He would have had absolutely nothing to lose - would he? So why didn't he do it? Because the same billionaires that won't let the Republicans grind the economy to a halt also run this thing called Obama. Or maybe different billionaires. I'm sure you get my meaning.

 

Rev Pesky

The presidential veto in the USA is not final. Congress can override the president's veto. The veto is not much more than a delaying action, particularly if the opposing party has a large majority. Not only that, but as we all should know, Congress can make presidential appointments almost impossible. In fact it was the threat of just such an action that prevented Obama from appointing a Supreme Court judge.

So that veto business is really a two-way street, and not much could be gained by vetoing everything.

Unionist

Rev Pesky wrote:

The presidential veto in the USA is not final. Congress can override the president's veto.

Yeah, I'm aware of that. Just as you must be aware that Obama's veto has only been overridden once, ever. That's when Congress overwhelmingly passed a bill allowing 9/11 victims' families to sue Saudi Arabia. Obama the Brave couldn't allow victims of terrorism to sue Saudi Arabia - so he vetoed that bill. Congress promptly told him to fuck off.

So you see - when it's an important issue (protecting Saudi Arabia from lawsuits, for fear it will spread to foreign victims' lawsuits against the U.S.) - Obama screws up his courage and screams loudly. But gun control? Just for flowery speeches to fool the unwashed masses.

Quote:

So that veto business is really a two-way street, and not much could be gained by vetoing everything.

Right, had Obama acted as I suggest, his important achievements might have ground to a halt. I guess you're unaware that Obama exercised his veto power twelve (12) times, and it was only overridden that one time.

JKR

Unionist wrote:

JKR wrote:

If Obama refused to sign money bills the Republicans would just let America's economy grind to a halt and then blame Obama for not signing perfectly good money bills.

Oh, what a brilliant strategy. The Repbulicans would "blame Obama" - a lame duck president. And then what - Obama would be overthrown? Assassinated? Publicly shamed? And the masters whom the Republicans serve - they'd be fine with the economy grinding to a halt just to teach Obama a lesson about the second amendment? Your posts are too intelligent to let a ridiculous thesis like this slip by. 

If Obama had a shred of principle and human dignity, he would have done exactly what I just said. He would have had absolutely nothing to lose - would he? So why didn't he do it? Because the same billionaires that won't let the Republicans grind the economy to a halt also run this thing called Obama. Or maybe different billionaires. I'm sure you get my meaning.

 

I think the billionaires like the filibuster rules because they support non-active government. This why reducing taxes can not be filibustered. On the other hand implementing new programs and raising taxes can be filibustered. So I think the billionaires would rather have the economy grind to a halt than lose the Senate's filibuster rules. Ithink a good question to ask is: "why does the U.S. have these filibuster rules?" I think it is because the power that be know it supports the kind of government they want.

JKR

Unionist wrote:

Your thesis is that U.S. presidents can't do much. So don't worry about Trump. Just make up your mind with an emphasis on consistency.

 

I think presidents can't do much domestically without the cooperation of the Senate and House. Unfortunately the Republicans now control the Senate, the House, and the presidency, so Trump will likely be able to do very much. I think it is no coincidence that Obamacare was established during the short period when the Democrats had 60 seats in the Senate.

josh

JKR wrote:

I think Trump's power is limited by America's separation of powers but being in control of all 3 branches of government has given the Republicans enormous power. So the U.S. Republican party has more power over their government than the Liberal party has over our government. If Mitch McConnell, Paul Ryan, Mark Pence, and Donald Trump can work well together they will be able to considerably change the U.S. The Republicans will also likely be able to stack their Supreme Court with far-right judges. So sad. :(

It looks like the Democrats also won more votes than the Republicans in the Senate and House elections. So the party that came in second place will have complete control while the party that came in first place will have no power at all. So much for democracy. And to top it off Trump was the one complaining that the system was rigged against him.

As long as the filibuster is around in the senate, Democrats will be able to stop non-budgetary legislation. Does not appear that the Dems got the most votes in the house elections.

6079_Smith_W

But a veto doesn't DO anything. It just stops a decision by congress. As for the notion that Obama should have shut down the entire government until he got his way, the Republicans kind of beat him to that strategy, didn't they? In 2011, in 2013, and in 2015.

Doesn't really work if both sides are acting like overgrown babies who don't care who gets hurt by their ideology. But sure I guess him not resorting to blackmail to get his way makes him a coward.

 

Unionist

6079_Smith_W wrote:

As for the notion that Obama should have shut down the entire government until he got his way, the Republicans kind of beat him to that strategy, didn't they?

You love to exaggerate. I suggested Obama turn his tears about massacres, and those of the vast majority of Americans, into deeds, with a concrete dramatic act. Properly handled, it would have been a sign of courage and determination in a good cause, with broad support, and a legacy item to be proud of.

Quote:
Doesn't really work if both sides are acting like overgrown babies who don't care who gets hurt by their ideology. But sure I guess him not resorting to blackmail to get his way makes him a coward.

That sounds like any anti-worker ideologue condemning striking public service workers for using "blackmail" and "not caring who gets hurt".

You want to excuse Obama for shedding crocodile tears and doing absolutely nothing - not even trying - not even getting someone to introduce a decent bill, even if destined for defeat - because U.S. presidents are impotent without Congress? You want to draw an equality sign between Republican "blackmail" and the "blackmail" that I recommended? You want to call taking a strong stand in favour of the people's interests "acting like an overgrown baby" - while defending the oh-so-adult Obama who murders people with drones, invades foreign countries and effects violent regime change, but mustn't appear impolite with a reactionary Congress?

Go ahead and fill your boots. History leaves such apologism in the dust.

 

6079_Smith_W

Unionist, you said "vetoing everything congress passed until he got his way".

There is no exaggeration, and as I said, government shutdown was used repeatedly by congress against him, same as they refused to even hear his last supreme court nomination so it is hardly a "concrete, dramatic act". It would have just echoed the same tactic of Republicans who think they own government

And we aren't talking about striking public service workers. What we are talking about is a tactic that would have left those workers without paycheques.

But sure, let's praise Harper for his "nerve" in resorting to similar actions that go against everything in the spirit of good government, and call Obama a coward because he would not resort to that.

Though if we want to talk apologism, if he had done what you wanted would it have glossed over the drones and military actions for you (since you mention them), or would this just have been another thing (like the Iran deal, and Cuba) that you'd wave aside as not good enough to meet your standards?

 

Unionist

6079_Smith_W wrote:

Unionist, you said "vetoing everything congress passed until he got his way".

Correct. But that doesn't shut down government.

Quote:
It would have just echoed the same tactic of Republicans who think they own government.

It would have "echoed" it only for those who equate a fist raised for slavery with a fist raised for freedom - all they pretend to see is the fist (when it so serves their purposes). Strikes and lockouts are both shutdowns - if that's all they mean to you, I guess we don't inhabit the same "echo" chamber.

Quote:
And we aren't talking about striking public service workers. What we are talking about is a tactic that would have left those workers without paycheques.

Oh poor little babies, no paycheques. Like closing down armaments factories and nuclear power stations and laying off cops and soldiers and (in Canada) good union jobs manufacturing tanks for Saudi Arabia. Weep, boohoo, mustn't do that, no matter how noble the cause. Time to feel sorry for the workers. Sob.

Quote:
But sure, let's praise Harper for his "nerve" in resorting to similar actions that go against everything in the spirit of good government, and call Obama a coward because he would not resort to that.

Not exactly. Let's weep and wail (and do nothing) when Harper uses every single weapon at his disposal to get his way, and praise Obama for doing nothing - but doing it oh so politely. No, merci.

Quote:
Though if we want to talk apologism, if he had done what you wanted would it have glossed over the drones and military actions for you (since you mention them), or would this just have been another thing (like the Iran deal, and Cuba) that you'd wave aside as not good enough to meet your standards?

1. You don't get it. An Obama who took dramatic uncompromising stands in favour of the people would not and could not be the same Obama who smilingly slaughters innocents abroad in the service of his billionaire masters.

2. You should read carefully. I praised the Iran deal in my comments above, without any mitigation. And I stand by my condemnation of Obama for wallowing around the White House for 8 years and not even taking a strong stand on ending the obscene embargo. Get it right, please. It's called praising good acts and condemning bad ones and critiquing those that don't go far enough. Try it sometime.

6079_Smith_W

But those threatened shutdowns were the most concrete example of what you are talking about Unionist. They are what actually happened when congress used that tactic.

And you say it is an exaggeration, then you mock the people who would have paid the price for that irresponsible action.

And praised the Iran deal? You said "good one", and brushed it aside.

 You say it is called praising good actions and condemning bad ones? Then how honest is this?:

 

Unionist wrote:

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

 

I get that you don't like how he governed. But condemning him for not resorting to the same underhanded and dishonest tactics that his opponents used? I don't buy it any more than I buy Donald Trump's excuse that he was "smart" for using  loopholes to not pay hundreds of millions in taxes

Pages