• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

List of thing Obama has accomplished during his Presidency?

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Steeplerot

Lifer
Mar 29, 2004
13,051
6
81
Then what do you consider the starving of 500k to 1mn Iraqi children if not an act of war? What do you consider Clinton's air invasion of a country that was of no threat to Americans if not an act of war? Also, what am I making up? Just asking:) because Al Gore was another one of those pro-business, pro-war, pro-Federal Reserve Democrats. In fact, Clinton chose him as his running mate because of Gore being one of the most hawkish Democrats and more precisely because he voted for what lead to the Iraq War.

Ralph Nader believes Gore would've been exactly the same as Bush on foreign policy. Gore supported the Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act which was a violation of civil liberties. Nader didn't support it. At least Nader is honest, principled, and not a fucking idiotic, over-confident phony like Al Gore.
Of all the god awful history you regurgitate in here every once in awhile you trip on a bit of truth. This is one of those very rare moments. Well put. (I cant believe I said that)

Craig is wrong about this, but it happens.

The corruption is far deeper then Craig lets on, he holds on to a few idealouges in DC as if they can save us. Really they are more of a abberation then our system balancing itself. (the US has ALWAYS been a dysfunctional mess)

Good people just do not make good politicians. The system itself is top heavy and cannot adapt as it is a relic of centuries past unable to resist mass media and the influence from inside of huge corporations that rival the size of whole countries back in the day.
 
Last edited:

Anarchist420

Diamond Member
Feb 13, 2010
8,649
0
76
www.facebook.com
Of all the god awful history you regurgitate in here every once in awhile you trip on a bit of truth. This is one of those very rare moments. Well put. (I cant believe I said that) Craig is wrong about this, but it happens. The corruption is far deeper then Craig lets on, he holds on to a few idealouges in DC as if they can save us. Really they are more of a abberation then our system balancing itself. (the US has ALWAYS been a dysfunctional mess)
Exactly, Craig is being intellectually dishonest or terribly ignorant by supporting Gore, when I'm sure he's be bright enough to advance liberalism by supporting Nader. He's a bright person I'm sure, but for him to support Gore is either purely ignorant or intellectually dishonest.
 

elitejp

Golden Member
Jan 2, 2010
1,080
19
81
I'd suggest you get two lists - things he's done, and things he tried to do but was blocked by Republican abuse of the filibuster/obstruction. He should get credit for those.
I was thinking the same thing, but with an understanding of how the govt works you also understand that the exact same thing happens when a Republican is president. The only way a party line president could do everything he wants is if both house and senate of that party line are in a large majority. No need to pretend like this type of politics is only limited to the side you dislike.
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,584
345
126
I was thinking the same thing, but with an understanding of how the govt works you also understand that the exact same thing happens when a Republican is president. The only way a party line president could do everything he wants is if both house and senate of that party line are in a large majority. No need to pretend like this type of politics is only limited to the side you dislike.
I agree with you, but the list of things Republicans blocked is far larger.

And remember, the list of things the President wanted to do he was blocked on is important in evaluating him - but that includes blame.

For example, Bush deserves 'credit' - blame - for wanting to privatize Social Security.
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,584
345
126
Of all the god awful history you regurgitate in here every once in awhile you trip on a bit of truth. This is one of those very rare moments. Well put. (I cant believe I said that)

Craig is wrong about this, but it happens.

The corruption is far deeper then Craig lets on, he holds on to a few idealouges in DC as if they can save us. Really they are more of a abberation then our system balancing itself. (the US has ALWAYS been a dysfunctional mess)

Good people just do not make good politicians. The system itself is top heavy and cannot adapt as it is a relic of centuries past unable to resist mass media and the influence from inside of huge corporations that rival the size of whole countries back in the day.
You are taking a truth too far. Gore wasn't perfect, and I don't agree with everything he did as VP. I'm critical of the sanctions in Iraq.

I do think the US had a legitimate interest in opposing Saddam as a terrible dictator on human rights grounds, in addition to his history having invaded Kuwait.

However, opposing Saddam doesn't mean going to war - something the Republicans asked Clinton to do, in a letter from PNAC, which Clinton declined to do.

However, Clinton did support the sanctions aimed at Saddam that caused mass misery and killing primarily of children. I'm not sure what Gore's position was but he supported Clinton.

Was it an act of war? Technically, no - it was a policy IIRC that was passed by the UN. It wasn't the same as a blockade, and a blockade isn't the same thing as an invasion.

But I can see it being called an act of war morally - but not the same as an invasion.

I suspect Gore evolved as well from when he was VP to after - and maybe more over time, as his politics such as reflected in his Current TV programming shows.

I think we can get a very good idea of Gore's views on invading Iraq from a speech he gave as the party's most recent nominee, September 23, 2002 specifically on the topic of war with Iraq, discussing Bush's demand for Congress to pass a bill authorizing force even if Bush promised not to use it to go to war without more approval.

The timing was sensitive - two weeks before mid-terms, which is why Bush put it up to a vote so he could use it against any Democrat who voted no in the election.

There was plenty of pressure on Democrats to support the bill. Gore opposed it.

In the speech, Gore laid out many reasons for opposing war with Iraq. He said that while he had voted for the first Gulf War as one of the few Democrats to do so, the same justification did not exist for the Bush war; it was a violaton of the UN charter, it would hurt our reputation, it would hurt the war on Al Queda, for a few reasons.

It clearly shows his views that while he very much opposed Saddam, he also very much opposed an aggressive war as the policy to address the issue.

http://www.gwu.edu/~action/2004/gore/gore092302sp.html

Whatever your views of the 'few good people who are elected', it's appropriate to be fair in evaluating them and to support them over the alternative.

I'm not unaware that progressives are a minority - but supporting them is the right thing to do IMO.

By the way, I don't consider Gore a progressive in the 2000 election - he was a member of the DLC, like Clinton, and wanted to be a 'moderate Democrat' - what I call corporatist.

Like I said, it seems to me he changed.
 
Last edited:

sportage

Diamond Member
Feb 1, 2008
9,512
1,494
126
Obama's heart was always in the right place.
His problem was in believing that being nice to republicans would work.
Believing that republicans respected him.
Believing that republicans consider him a legitimate president in the first place.

Obama should have followed LBJ's handbook from the start.
Taken nothing for granted.
Stuck to his guns.
And taken a far more hands-on leadership roll within his own congressional party.
Not just assume the democrats in congress would get it done the right way.

I think Obama still believes down deep that he is liked by the other side.
That the other side feels he earned the title of president.
He isn't. And they don't.

I will forever believe the reason democrats took such a pounding in 2010 was NOT because of Obamacare or the Obama stimulus package.
The reason democrats took such a pounding was that Obamacare failed to deliver the "public option". And the stimulus package wasn't big enough to do what it was intended to do.
If we had the public option with Obamacare, and all across America roads and bridges were being rebuilt along with high speed rail, if all that had happened then Obama and the country would be soaring with success.

Obama was and is just too nice of a guy. And as they say, nice guys never win.
But despite all that, Romney would be much worse.
We'd have the Ryan plan, more knee jerk wars, MUCH more sending than GW every imagined, social programs returned to the dark ages, and 10% unemployment would be known as "the good old days".
People constantly forget that... it could be worse. A lot worse.
GW should have taught everyone that lesson.
I don't know what is is with people that they have this need to learn lessons the hard way.
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,880
4,212
126
I'd suggest you get two lists - things he's done, and things he tried to do but was blocked by Republican abuse of the filibuster/obstruction. He should get credit for those.
Should there be a list of things he said he was against but was really for like the NDAA and indefinite detention and nullifying associated Constitution protections?
 

nageov3t

Lifer
Feb 18, 2004
42,826
83
91
Obama's heart was always in the right place.
His problem was in believing that being nice to republicans would work.
Believing that republicans respected him.
seems like only yesterday that Paul Ryan was forcing Obama to assassinate Americans citizens without due process.
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,880
4,212
126
seems like only yesterday that Paul Ryan was forcing Obama to assassinate Americans citizens without due process.
And Obama will walk your dog and part the water and oh the people just didn't understand that this saintly man knows best and we should all obey and support whatever he says.

:wub::wub::wub:
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
71,830
22,006
136
seems like only yesterday that Paul Ryan was forcing Obama to assassinate Americans citizens without due process.
The way I look at Obama is that he has (generally) good domestic policy, excellent foreign policy, and terrible civil liberties policy. Like I said earlier though, the Republicans love his civil liberties policy and if anything would probably like to go even further.

The one benefit to a Romney presidency would be that it would likely reawaken the left to start caring about civil liberties again, as people are reluctant to criticize their 'team''s president. All those abuses that were such outrages under Bush have suddenly not been so bad under Obama. (although I am very happy to see we have apparently stopped torturing people)

That being said, such a dynamic isn't remotely close to being enough for me to vote for someone who holds as many deeply awful positions as Romney, his poor personal characteristics aside.
 

nageov3t

Lifer
Feb 18, 2004
42,826
83
91
Do we really need this thread once a month.
it's almost like every other month if you take into account the fact that half the threads are started by Obama supporters spamming some chain letter list they got forwarded to them, while the other half are started by Obama haters.
 

shortylickens

No Lifer
Jul 15, 2003
78,647
11,573
126
it's almost like every other month if you take into account the fact that half the threads are started by Obama supporters spamming some chain letter list they got forwarded to them, while the other half are started by Obama haters.
I hate them.
Anybody who has the drive and motivation and free time to actually research a proper list cant be trusted to be honest. This is just a waste of bandwidth.
 

alzan

Diamond Member
May 21, 2003
3,861
2
0
Well he seems to have pissed off a lot of conservatives. I'd count that as a positive accomplishment.
 

xj0hnx

Diamond Member
Dec 18, 2007
9,267
3
76
Well he seems to have pissed off a lot of conservatives. I'd count that as a positive accomplishment.
Yea, who'd want to do something like strive to work together to make the country a better place, let concentrate on pissing off people that don't think the same, that will get us far. Thanks for being the perfect example of the type of partisan loser that's destroying the country :thumbsup:
 

alzan

Diamond Member
May 21, 2003
3,861
2
0
Yea, who'd want to do something like strive to work together to make the country a better place, let concentrate on pissing off people that don't think the same, that will get us far. Thanks for being the perfect example of the type of partisan loser that's destroying the country :thumbsup:
So you're arguing that he intended to piss off conservatives? I never said intentional or accidental. See presidents get credit for doing things over which they have no direct control; gas prices, unemployment, etc.

So by saying that he "concentrated on pissing off people that don't think the same" that makes you an example of the type of partisan loser that's destroying the country. :thumbsup:

Also, if you really want people working together to make the country a better place, you might direct your concerns and thoughts to our various congress-critters. I have.
 
Last edited:

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,876
460
126
I hate them.
Anybody who has the drive and motivation and free time to actually research a proper list cant be trusted to be honest. This is just a waste of bandwidth.
LOL This - on both sides.

I think in general a huge amount of what gets studied is done to support a preferred pre-determined outcome, but in politics that approaches 100%.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY