Capitol Hill Blue Forums Political Issues Politics In General Is it too soon to be talking 2020?

I don't think Obama was a great president. I think in the next Historian polls that come out he'll be somewhere in the middle of the pact or headed that way 20 years hence. Historians usually wait awhile before rating presidents to see how their policies effected this country long term.

I will add this, Obama seems to be great because he was president between G.W. Bush and Trump. Historians rank G.W. 33rd, where they rank Trump remains to be seen. I would reckon lower than G.W. So being sandwiched between these two makes one look like a diamond in the rough.

You are right, to a point. Remember, these people you are talking about are going to be REALLY pissed off and not exactly taking a long view or thinking things through.

When you have a situation when people are not exactly thinking things through they are also wide open to the bullsh*t blathered by them that take advantage.

The single wide trailer parks are also interesting. Most of those have been bought up by developers.

The real problem is that its not only the poor people getting screwed over. The rich people have lost all of their customers and are also not exactly delighted.

I continue to believe that they are both in the same bucket of crap and if they are to survive they should get together and make some kind of a deal. I suggested that, I just don't see it happening. We don't have a rudder. We can't depend on the administration, the congress is pretty much worthless and there are a lot of questions about our judicial system.

Unless somebody figures it out we are in for a REALLY bad time! (and it scares the hell out of me)

Its always interested me about how not great Obama was/is. It might even be true. On the other hand nobody ever seems to remember that the other side claimed, right out loud, as soon as he was elected, that they would not allow him to get a single piece of legislation done under his name. As soon as 2018 rolled around they won the senate and so Obama had to legislate by decree. The first two years was spent on the economy and health care which his own party fought him on - tooth and nail.

I wonder, right now, just how the Dems will behave once they take office. Their record is not exactly great and they REALLY like to quibble and fight and behave poorly given half a chance.

Oh, the Dems lost to Trump, in 2016 for a lot of reasons. That being said the simple fact that the Dems considered Trump to be a joke was, I think, one of the main reasons. We all gotta remember that the Democrats are quite capable, and has a huge capacity, of screwing it up!

A lot of white nationalists feel that way.

Remember, Mitch McConnell said on the night of January 9, 2009 it was his and the GOP's goal to make Obama a one-term president. Obama did pretty well under those conditions. History will note what I just wrote.

Okay, so I think Obama was more of an average president than a great one, that makes me a white nationalist. Personally, in my lifetime I rank Eisenhower as the best, JFK second, the I swap three and four around a lot, Reagan and Bill Clinton.

I find it interesting that historians talking the long term view of presidents to give it time to evaluate how their policies effected this country ten, twenty years after they left office along with giving the partisanship factor a chance to die down rate those four presidents, IKE 5, JFK 8, Reagan 9, Bill Clinton 15 all time.

I ranked LBJ below Bill, but historians have him ranked 10th. So I do differ some with them.

If you all want to consider Obama a great president, that fine. With me, Obama spent his last six years as a caretaker president defending the ACA and not getting much if anything else accomplished. That outside of Executive orders, using his phone and his pen.

After all, how one views a president is a personal perspective. A white nationalist, no biggie. I've been called a lot worst on another site, by both the left and the right since I don't fall into either's ideological mandate or litmus test for inclusion. Actually, it's quite fun that way. I like being a free agent, able to decide where I stand on the issues one at a time based on each issues merits. The same with candidates. Not being told what to think, say and vote like some mindless robot owned by a political party.

Yeah, I'm a white nationalist too. Obama could have been great.
But he was about the milquetoastiest oatmeal sandwich that ever sat on the throne.

He's a great man. But politically he was a coward.

Shoulda went low a few times. He didn't stand up for the public option in the ACA. He wasn't really in favor of same sex marriage either, Biden talked him into his grudging support of it.

I wanted him to be great. I hoped for change.

I think with the super majorities Obama had his first two years, he could have gotten anything he wanted through congress. He chose to let it be one thing, the ACA. Perhaps two if you count his stimulus package. Then six years of battling to retain the ACA, basically as I stated, a caretaker outside of the EO route.

It wasn't Obama's first two years that made him average in my book, it was his last six. Perhaps healthcare was that important to him that he was willing to give up getting much of anything accomplished during his last six. Or it might have been he and all other Democrats never saw 2010 coming. After all, the Democrats had a 257-178 margin in the House. The GOP needed a net gain of 40 seats to regain the house. No one envisioned 63. That 63 seat loss is the most seats lost since the 1932 election when the GOP lost 101. But even 1932 was outdone by the 1894 election when the Democrats lost 105.

Yeah, I agree Obama could have been great, but those last six caretaker years makes him average.

Okay, enough of Obama. Here's a very good article on Tammy Duckworth. She's who I think Biden should pick for his VP. I really like this girl. Four years as Biden's VP then president in 2024.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/tammy-duckworth-nothing-everything-joe-154654762.html

Yet, there were over fifty bills passed. You should be kissing Obama's black feet that your diabetes is no longer a pre-existing condition.

Also too, 58 Den senators are not a "super majority." That would be 67. Your hyperbole is noted.

It takes 60 for cloture and has since 1975. With the two independents caucusing with the democrats they had 60 from 7 July 2009-4 Feb 2010. True there were only 58 Democrats or who called themselves Democrats, but with the two independents Joe Lieberman and Bernie Sanders, that made 60 which was held until Scott Brown replaced Ted Kennedy. Actually Brown replaced Paul Kirk who had replaced Ted Kennedy.

Your super majority isn't 67 anymore. It's 60.