Jump to content

Type keyword(s) to search

Barack Hussein Obama II: 44th President of The United States

atomationage

By atomationage
in Current Events & Politics

Recommended Posts

stillshimpy

stillshimpy

Hey, does anyone know if Barrack Obama is a Cubs fan, by any chance?  I'm asking, because seeing as we're in Obama's thread, I thought I'd try and figure out if there was anything nice that happened in 2016 from his perspective.  

That was pretty much the only thing I could come up with after several minutes of searching my memory banks for something that didn't suck for him.

I mean, other than his cute dogs, lovely family, beautiful wife, good soul and soon-to-be retirement, that is.   

  • Love 4
Link to comment
  • Replies 377
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

Darian
Darian

I have nothing but admiration for and gratitude toward President Obama and First Lady Michelle Obama. I get weepy thinking of them out of the White House, but I am happy they can get on with their liv

Spartan Girl
Spartan Girl

Whether you agree or disagree with Obama's policies, you can't deny that Obama is a nice, funny, family man that handles criticism with class. Something Trump knows nothing about.

Calvada
Calvada

Not quite sure how Pres. Obama "divided the races for political gain."  If by having policies that that attracted the votes of minority Americans when the Republicans did not, then OK, I guess the rac

Posted Images

stillshimpy

stillshimpy

He had some fun with it.  (I happened to know the answer because my friend in Chicago is also a Pale Hose fan, so it comes up in conversation, but here's an article about it.)

That was entirely delightful, thank you for linking to it.   Those were some of the purest laughs I've had in a while, only slightly marred by how much I will miss seeing him on my TV regularly. 

  • Love 3
Link to comment
BW Manilowe

BW Manilowe

1 hour ago, callmebetty said:

If he was impeached and Pence moved up, who becomes VP? Is it Ryan?

It's whomever Pence would nominate. The line of succession doesn't come into play here. As someone else said, in either this thread or another, when Spiro Agnew (Nixon's original VP) resigned, Carl Albert (then the Speaker of the House) did not automatically become VP. Nixon chose Gerald Ford, then the Republican Congressman representing the part of Michigan including Grand Rapids. Ford was confirmed, took office, & then ascended to the presidency when Nixon resigned due to Watergate. And then Ford selected Nelson Rockefeller, a Republican politician from New York (as I remember) to be his VP, which was confirmed.

The Speaker of the House only becomes VP if selected by the President, should the VP resign or die in office, & (s)he only becomes President if both the President & VP are unable to fulfill the duties of the office of the President.

  • Love 1
Link to comment
stillshimpy

stillshimpy

Good to know, good to know.  I admire Michelle Obama as much as I admire her husband -- which is to say, quite a bit (I say in a rare fit of restraint) --  so I will take that as glad tidings indeed.  

I hope they are having a beautiful season together, all of them, planning for all the adventures and time they will all spend together.  They deserve all the peace, quiet and happiness that this world can offer them.  

  • Love 9
Link to comment
ChristmasJones

ChristmasJones

was feeling nostalgic this morning and decided to re-watch Obama's victory speech in 2008.  Humility, dignity, and intelligence are the words that come to mind. He is truly a great speaker.  It was astounding to contrast his speech with anything we've ever heard from the orange one.

  • Love 12
Link to comment
ChristmasJones

ChristmasJones

What really stands out most to me about that speech is that it is not about HIM. Its not a speech about how great HE is as a person. Its about all the people who got him elected, as well as about how this moment is a part of a history of all us. That is one of the things I have always loved so much about President Obama- his lack of an ego. That is the sign of a truly confident man, IMO. Confident enough to be truly humble, despite all of his amazing qualities, and able to laugh at himself.  Regardless of whether I agreed with his every decision, he is someone I could always feel proud of representing our country.  How far the pendulum has swung.

  • Love 15
Link to comment
Padma

Padma

The U.S. finally abstains (rather than vetoes) a U.N. resolution condemning Israeli settlements in the West Bank.http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/obama-un-israel-settlements-abstain_us_58.5d627ee4b0eb58648632b5

Quote

One cannot simultaneously champion expanding Israeli settlements and champion a viable two-state solution that would end the conflict,” Power said. Netanyahu has publicly boasted of his support for the settler movement, and some of his advisers have disavowed the two-state solution entirely, she added

Trump was asked by Netanyahu yesterday to intervene on the vote (supposed to happen Thursday) and he did, applying public pressure for the U.S. to veto it as we did in 2011. 

Today, marked a difference, but Trump assures everyone he will take a VERY hard line in support of Netanyahu and whatever he wants, two-state solution (agreed to by Israel), be damned.

  • Love 3
Link to comment
choclatechip45

choclatechip45

(edited)
23 hours ago, shang yiet said:

Good for Obama finally showing his impatience with Israel and allowing the UN resolution to go through.

If he wanted to make a statement he should have done it in 2011. In my opinion it looks petty and giant fuck you. I like Obama but I would have had more respect if he had done this in 2011.

Edited by choclatechip45
Link to comment
shang yiet

shang yiet

I agree. I don't know what he was waiting for. I guess this was his last chance to make a mark on this issue. Some critics have said he could have done more than just abstained like actually voted to condemn like the 14 other nations.

Link to comment
choclatechip45

choclatechip45

(edited)
30 minutes ago, shang yiet said:

I agree. I don't know what he was waiting for. I guess this was his last chance to make a mark on this issue. Some critics have said he could have done more than just abstained like actually voted to condemn like the 14 other nations.

He wouldn't vote against the resolution unless he wanted to make sure Democrats will loose every Jewish person who donates millions of dollars and cause a huge rift in the Democratic party.

Edited by choclatechip45
Link to comment
Duke Silver

Duke Silver

(edited)
 
EDIT:  IOW, the electorate, during my lifetime at least, has this penchant for reacting to/mobilizing against too much single-party power.  Unfortunately (from the POV of many here), 2018 won't (less than 1% chance, IMO) be a continuation of that trend.  The mid-terms map is simply too awful fro Dems.
Edited by Duke Silver
  • Love 1
Link to comment
Padma

Padma

3 hours ago, rcc said:

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/obama-says-hes-confident-he-could-have-won-2016-trump-959304

I don't think he meant any disrespect to Hillary but part of me wishes he hadn't said it. Trump is tweeting of course because he thinks it's all about him but I hate that Hillary might be hurt by this. 

Well, whatever he meant, it Is disrespectful -- and completely unnecessary, since he couldn't have been a candidate anyway (unlike Bernie's "woulda, coulda, shoulda"). A bigger question for Obama is why, as leader of the Democratic party, he did such a HORRIBLE job of getting Democrats elected nationally (and a pretty lousy job of working with Dems in Congress, too.)  It's not all about him and his personal popularity. What would make an even BIGGER difference would be to have a Democratic Congress and liberal majority SC. 

He shares the failure for that, maybe more than anyone else.  And he's apparently going to be shocked when his "legacy" is dismantled within a year because of it.

I'm glad the U.S. finally criticized Netanyahu's illegal settlements by at least abstaining and letting the vote go through. Too little, too late, but I guess now that Obama doesn't have to follow through with any "critical-of-Israeli-settlements-policy", he felt he could let the U.S. go on record as not just being "my Israel, right or wrong" ALL the time.

  • Love 4
Link to comment
TheGreenKnight

TheGreenKnight

I agree. I like Obama, but I wish he hadn't said that. Although, tbh, I think it's true only because the African American community mobilized to a larger degree behind him than they did Hillary, which probably would've made the difference. Still, the sexism that's pervaded the Democratic Party both during the Primary--where Sanders was treated like a saint and Hillary as somehow just as evil as Trump--and post-election--with Biden-Obama-Bernie all being paraded as people who could've beat Trump where Hillary failed--is incredibly disappointing.

I wish Joe Biden had run this year (and lost, if that was meant to happen regardless, since I'm not much of a Biden fan, tbh) with Hillary running in 2020 after the e-mails nonsense was long-dead and without having to face the Obama backlash that was likely in 2016.

  • Love 2
Link to comment
ruby24

ruby24

I think it's obvious Obama would have won easily, simply because he's enormously popular, which neither Trump nor Hillary were. He would have mobilized minority turnout and he would have held onto to those inexplicable liberal white working class people who still strongly approve of him, yet voted for Trump anyway.

And Biden, also being well-liked, would have won too, I think. (Not sure about Bernie, to be honest- I think he would have been easier to paint as an unknown quantity).

But one thing is clear to me now. The left has a serious problem with sexism. So I honestly don't know when we'll see a woman president in this country.

  • Love 5
Link to comment
Padma

Padma

49 minutes ago, ruby24 said:

..But one thing is clear to me now. The left has a serious problem with sexism. So I honestly don't know when we'll see a woman president in this country.

There's sexism to be sure, but Hillary still won by nearly 3 million votes. And only "lost" those three swing states by a combined 77,000.  If there hadn't been fraud in Wisc. and Michigan, and voter suppression in NC (and I'm still suspicious of strange goings-on in Florida, despite the huge early vote for Hillary), she could have won, sexism and all.

Also...no Comey, no Russia, no media playing along with both (and Trump's attack based on her "corruption" via email) she would have easily won there, too. Until Comey came along, polls were showing her possibly taking Texas and Georgia. Even Trump's polls showed "no path to 270". 

So while there was sexism--like there was racism in 2008--if there hadn't been widespread CHEATING (in all the forms mentioned above), she would have easily won the EC, not just the popular vote.

  • Love 10
Link to comment
shok

shok

Did everyone go and read the link posted by RCC? http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/obama-says-hes-confident-he-could-have-won-2016-trump-959304

Despite the headline, it's really quite a good reporting of what Obama actually said during the long podcast with his old buddy Axlerod and as usual, the media has totally taken it out of context and ginned up the horserace aspect because of the mention of Trump. Obama wasn't really talking about beating Trump, he was talking about his optimism that the United States was still a nation "that is tolerant and diverse and open and full of energy and dynamism," and that if he had had a chance to go out and talk to the people (instead of being busy, you know, with being leader of the free world), that he could have explained his vision well enough to beat the darker message from Trump.

Quote

"The Democratic agenda is better for all working people," said Obama, adding that the idea that Democrats have abandoned the white working class is "nonsense" and that the Affordable Care Act benefits "a huge number" of Trump voters. "Education, family leave, community colleges, making it easier for unions to organize, that's an agenda for working class Americans of all stripes."

He also defended Hillary.

Quote

During his wide-ranging interview on Monday, Obama also defended Hillary Clinton, saying she "performed wonderfully under really tough circumstances."

"I've said this publicly, I'll repeat it: I think there was a double standard with her," he said of the Democratic presidential candidate. "For whatever reason, there's been a long-standing difficulty in her relationship with the press that meant her flaws were wildly amplified relative to [Trump's]."

He added that it's easy to be a Monday morning quarterback: "Understandably, I think she looked and said, 'Well, given my opponent and the things he's saying and what he's doing, we should focus on that.' "

  • Love 13
Link to comment
Padma

Padma

Kerry's taking a lot of ... flak. ... for his Israeli-Palestianian speech today. I thought he actually laid out the problems very well, so I'm not sure what all his critics are so mad about (other than, you know, not just saying "Whatever Israel--i.e. Netanyahu--wants is fine with me").

However, it's a little like Obama's Executive Orders to save the environment. I mean, Trump's just going to come in and do the opposite anyway and legally he can.  Kerry's laid out the dangers of abandoning the two-state solution as Trump seems on the verge of doing. Kerry didn't say it (instead said, "He's going to do something different--oh well, that's our system), but it's clear. Netanyahu is dancing because Trump will let him do whatever he wants--in this case, all the settlements he wants and everything he can to make there only ONE state--Israel. (Including Trump's horrific idea of recognizing Jerusalem as the capitaol of Israel--and, of course, getting no concessions for the Palestinians in return.)

"Might makes right".  Trump and Netanyahu agree and will soon eliminate this generation of Palestinians' chance for a homeland, making the world a much more dangerous  place.

My question is... if Obama REALLY wanted to bring about peace, why not use all the U.S. money we give Israel for leverage?  It's been tens of billions of dollars.  Why not just say, "More settlements will mean no more money"?

Kerry's speech was very fine, but it had no teeth and obviously wouldn't change anything. No money? That could actually have an effect.  But ... no.  Everyone talks, but apparently balks at tough love.

  • Love 4
Link to comment
millennium

millennium

On 12/27/2016 at 11:45 PM, ruby24 said:

I think it's obvious Obama would have won easily, simply because he's enormously popular, which neither Trump nor Hillary were. He would have mobilized minority turnout and he would have held onto to those inexplicable liberal white working class people who still strongly approve of him, yet voted for Trump anyway.

 

I don't think Obama could have won.   He is too much a gentleman and too much an adult.   He proceeds from a standpoint of reason, compassion and fairness.   This was an election where reason and compassion were considered liabilities.  And fairness?  Pffft.

Furthermore, Obama never had to contend with an opposition deliberately stoking the flames of racism.   I can't imagine what a hate-fest this election might have been had Obama been the candidate.

I think he would have been eaten alive.

  • Love 3
Link to comment
choclatechip45

choclatechip45

(edited)
15 hours ago, Padma said:

Kerry's taking a lot of ... flak. ... for his Israeli-Palestianian speech today. I thought he actually laid out the problems very well, so I'm not sure what all his critics are so mad about (other than, you know, not just saying "Whatever Israel--i.e. Netanyahu--wants is fine with me").

However, it's a little like Obama's Executive Orders to save the environment. I mean, Trump's just going to come in and do the opposite anyway and legally he can.  Kerry's laid out the dangers of abandoning the two-state solution as Trump seems on the verge of doing. Kerry didn't say it (instead said, "He's going to do something different--oh well, that's our system), but it's clear. Netanyahu is dancing because Trump will let him do whatever he wants--in this case, all the settlements he wants and everything he can to make there only ONE state--Israel. (Including Trump's horrific idea of recognizing Jerusalem as the capitaol of Israel--and, of course, getting no concessions for the Palestinians in return.)

"Might makes right".  Trump and Netanyahu agree and will soon eliminate this generation of Palestinians' chance for a homeland, making the world a much more dangerous  place.

My question is... if Obama REALLY wanted to bring about peace, why not use all the U.S. money we give Israel for leverage?  It's been tens of billions of dollars.  Why not just say, "More settlements will mean no more money"?

Kerry's speech was very fine, but it had no teeth and obviously wouldn't change anything. No money? That could actually have an effect.  But ... no.  Everyone talks, but apparently balks at tough love.

If Obama pulled Israel's funding that would be a disaster for the Democratic Party. A lot of the super wealthy donors for the Democratic Party are Jewish.  Haim Saban one of the richest donors is Israeli. A lot of democrats have spoken out against the UN vote.  Personally I feel Kerry should have given this speech years ago. 

I do belive George W. Bush did cut funding over the settlements in 2003. It's too late for Obama to do that.

Edited by choclatechip45
  • Love 2
Link to comment
sistermagpie

sistermagpie

11 hours ago, millennium said:

I don't think Obama could have won.   He is too much a gentleman and too much an adult.   He proceeds from a standpoint of reason, compassion and fairness.   This was an election where reason and compassion were considered liabilities.  And fairness?  Pffft.

I don't agree. Obama wouldn't have had to deal with the main reason people gave for not voting for Hillary, which was her alleged shadiness.

  • Love 5
Link to comment
millennium

millennium

3 hours ago, sistermagpie said:

I don't agree. Obama wouldn't have had to deal with the main reason people gave for not voting for Hillary, which was her alleged shadiness.

IMO, the alleged shadiness was just the reason people gave so they wouldn't have to admit to misogyny, racism or homophobia.

  • Love 8
Link to comment
Ohwell

Ohwell

15 hours ago, millennium said:

I don't think Obama could have won.   He is too much a gentleman and too much an adult.   He proceeds from a standpoint of reason, compassion and fairness.   This was an election where reason and compassion were considered liabilities.  And fairness?  Pffft.

Furthermore, Obama never had to contend with an opposition deliberately stoking the flames of racism.   I can't imagine what a hate-fest this election might have been had Obama been the candidate.

I think he would have been eaten alive.

I have to disagree here.  I think Obama would have won the states Hillary did, plus Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania, mainly because he would have brought out more African Americans and younger voters.  Also, in general, and there would have been more people who wouldn't have voted third party and would have voted for him, and more people who wouldn't have stayed home and would have voted for him.  Trump would have been toast.  

However, since he couldn't have run anyway, it's a moot point.  However, I think that any other Democratic nominee besides Hillary Clinton would have beaten Trump.   Being a woman, plus, a woman with baggage, made the difference.    

  • Love 7
Link to comment
DkNNy79

DkNNy79

1 hour ago, Ohwell said:

I have to disagree here.  I think Obama would have won the states Hillary did, plus Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania, mainly because he would have brought out more African Americans and younger voters.  Also, in general, and there would have been more people who wouldn't have voted third party and would have voted for him, and more people who wouldn't have stayed home and would have voted for him.  Trump would have been toast.  

However, since he couldn't have run anyway, it's a moot point.  However, I think that any other Democratic nominee besides Hillary Clinton would have beaten Trump.   Being a woman, plus, a woman with baggage, made the difference.    

I agree wholeheartedly!

  • Love 2
Link to comment
millennium

millennium

1 hour ago, Ohwell said:

 mainly because he would have brought out more African Americans and younger voters.

I have heard many pundits say this, and who am I to disagree, but it occurs to me that if in fact this is true it does not reflect very well on those African American voters -- that they can only be motivated to vote for the future of their nation if a black man is on the ballot.   In fact, it sounds a lot like racism to me (on their part, not yours).

  • Love 1
Link to comment
Ohwell

Ohwell

6 minutes ago, millennium said:

I have heard many pundits say this, and who am I to disagree, but it occurs to me that if in fact this is true it does not reflect very well on those African American voters -- that they can only be motivated to vote for the future of their nation if a black man is on the ballot.   In fact, it sounds a lot like racism to me (on their part, not yours).

I'm don't think that was the case though--that the African Americans who stayed home did it because it wasn't a black candidate.  I do think that some (most?) of them who stayed home or voted third party (I won't even discuss the three who voted for Trump) did so because they remember how the Clintons treated Obama during the 2008 campaign (Obama's candidacy was a "fairytale," among other slights), and that left a bad taste in their mouths.  Mine, too even though I voted for her.  I know some of my relatives brought it up in this campaign.  However, I think these same people would have voted for Joe Biden or Sanders or even Martin O'Malley.  In short, I don't think it had anything to do with race.    

  • Love 2
Link to comment
ruby24

ruby24

10 minutes ago, Ohwell said:

I'm don't think that was the case though--that the African Americans who stayed home did it because it wasn't a black candidate.  I do think that some (most?) of them who stayed home or voted third party (I won't even discuss the three who voted for Trump) did so because they remember how the Clintons treated Obama during the 2008 campaign (Obama's candidacy was a "fairytale," among other slights), and that left a bad taste in their mouths.  Mine, too even though I voted for her.  I know some of my relatives brought it up in this campaign.  However, I think these same people would have voted for Joe Biden or Sanders or even Martin O'Malley.  In short, I don't think it had anything to do with race.    

All those people are men though. So maybe something to do with gender?

  • Love 4
Link to comment
Duke Silver

Duke Silver

4 minutes ago, NewDigs said:

I think it also needs to be considered that many many acts of voter suppression targeted African-American communities. Probably disproportionately.

With "surgical precision" in the great state of North Carolina, specifically, yes.

  • Love 9
Link to comment
Ohwell

Ohwell

(edited)
53 minutes ago, ruby24 said:

All those people are men though. So maybe something to do with gender?

Yes, that's what I said in my previous post.

The reason I mentioned those three was that they were primary candidates, or were talked about as a possible candidate in the case of Biden.  

Edited by Ohwell
  • Love 2
Link to comment
Chicken Wing

Chicken Wing

2 hours ago, Ohwell said:

I have to disagree here.  I think Obama would have won the states Hillary did, plus Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania, mainly because he would have brought out more African Americans and younger voters.  Also, in general, and there would have been more people who wouldn't have voted third party and would have voted for him, and more people who wouldn't have stayed home and would have voted for him.  Trump would have been toast.  

However, since he couldn't have run anyway, it's a moot point.  However, I think that any other Democratic nominee besides Hillary Clinton would have beaten Trump.   Being a woman, plus, a woman with baggage, made the difference.    

I agree, I also think Obama would have won. It would have been closer than 2012, but he still would have won. Yes, this was a change election, and Obama was "more of the same" just like Clinton was, except he was literally more of the same, but here's the big difference and where he would have taken votes that Clinton didn't: Obama is well liked. We can't forget many, many Trump voters picked him in the end because they can't stand Hillary Clinton. Both Trump and Clinton were historically unpopular. A lot of people hated them both but for many there was something particularly unsavory about her that made them grudgingly pull the lever for Trump. And many people could not bear to vote for either and gave their vote instead to third-party candidates -- more than 5 percent of the overall vote went third party -- or just stayed home. It was easier for some people to vote for Trump because, inexplicably, he and Clinton were weighed somewhat equally as bad choices. But it would have been a lot harder to move to the Trump side, harder to ignore just how unfit and unqualified and unpopular he was, if his opponent was someone much more popular and likable than Hillary Clinton and ten times more likable and palatable than him. I do believe if Obama had been on the ballot, as much as people wanted something "different," many of those two-time Obama voters who switched to Trump would have gone to him a third time as the obviously better option. And because the race was so infuriatingly close in the end -- ultimately being decided by 77,000 votes in three states -- I think Obama would have retained enough of the reluctant Trump voters and third-party protest voters to at least clinch those states, which would have been the minimum he needed to win.

  • Love 5
Link to comment
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...