Why is Obama unpopular?

Sorry but thats mostly utter tosh. Obama enacted a major piece of generational legislation, his administration eased the US from a disaster and he dramatically reduced the deficit.

Neither Reagan nor Clinton did any of this in the face of such opposition. Clintons effort at health reform failed miserably. Reagan presided over a vast expansion in public debt without the economic crisis.

You right wing guys are simply in ignorance of the facts, willingly so.

 

Obama dead-enders are going to believe what they believe and are going to believe it in spite of any and all evidence to the contrary . . . no . . . matter . . . what. I'm cool with that. It was the same with the G.W. Bush dead-enders. But I have noticed that very gradually over the passing of years since Bush left office more and more of them are beginning to grudgingly admit to Bush faults that they were absolutely adamant back in the day, just did not exist. So some people are able to -- um -- progress over time. It just takes some people longer than others to finally accept reality.

 

So? There are always racists in the world. But the discovery of a racist does not mean anything more than that a single racist has been discovered. Still . . . deepest sympathy over such an in-law.

 

One might argue that Obama was not able to organize all the communities. That was supposed to be his strong suit.... right?

 

You kidding? Truman's directly responsible for nuking Japan when there was no need(by 1945, our tactical superiority was established), he also failed to safeguard our nuclear technologies and watched the world proliferate. Eisenhower's foreign policy steered the country back on track.

 

He has pitted Democrats against Republicans more than any president. He is a very divisive president. When he speaks, you KNOW a lie is coming out. He is so arrogant to believe that he is smarter than all of us combined, and when caught in his numerous lies, he just keeps going as if nothing happened and adds more lies to cover up the old lies and the cycle just repeats itself. People try to say he is brilliant, but I don't see that at all. He's just a bad scammer.

 

I would then suggest you refrain from telling me about how gratuitous my post is.

I am also suggesting he is not alone. There are plenty more out there just like my punk nephew.

 

Wrong. Japan's culture did not permit them to surrender, our Military figured, based on the casualties we took in Okinawa, Tarawa and Saipan, that we would lose upwards of a million soldiers if we invaded. The Japanese were priming their population to fight to the last man woman and child. Don't kid yourself, as horrific as it was the decision to drop those two bombs saved millions of lives, both American and Japanese.

To attempt to blame him for failing to protect the information on the bombs, Stalin and the Soviets knew about the bomb and had much of the information on how to build it long before Truman did. Truman did not find out about the bomb or the Manhattan Project until he became President. Both the Soviets and the Nazi's had serious spy networks in the U.S. during the '30's, this was made easy by the Republicans during the 20's when the Congress gutted our military and the State Dept. which at the time were our primary sources of foreign intelligence. Of course with the Depression, there was no money to beef up those services, so the U.S. was basically without an intelligence service for the era between the wars. I should also point out that the U.S. had the same attitude about spys, Gentlemen did not do such things as sneaking around and stealing the secrets of other nations. Unfortunately both nations were going to ;pay a serious price for that failure. Both were blind sided more than once during the lead up to WWII. They both very quickly came to understand the need for such services very quickly after the beginning of the war, and they were quick studies. The code breakers at Benchley Park in Britain successfully broke the enigma code, and the U.S. led by Wild Bill Donovan created the forerunner of the CIA, the OSS. I should also point out that the FBI's focus during the era prior to WWII was on Crime and organized crime, it played better in the press than spy rings which seemed the stuff of fiction to most Americans.
Bottom line is that Truman is now considered by the vast majority of Presidential historians as in the top 10.

 

For what, exactly? He started what Lyndon.B. Johnson finished!

Today, these programs are bankrupt! They bring in more debt per GDP than the military. No, really.

Modern Liberalism has been an unmitigated disaster for at least the past 40 years(Democratic Houses). Literally the only Democrats I hold in favor are Jefferson, Madison, Polk and Kennedy.

 

Bush received much worse.

The investigations were not opened ended, they were targeted and Clinton was impeached for committed perjury and obstruction of justice in federal civil rights lawsuit and had the Democrats done the right thing they would have told him to resign before it reached an impeachment and then once again once it did and had he refused then voted to remove him from office.

And the question remains why does the big sleazebag to ever hold the office have such popularity especially with Democrats who claim to be the protector of women in the workplace and against sexual harassment. And why do they support Hillary who facilitated it and help orchestrate the cover ups.

Well I call sexual assaults and sexual harassment of subordinate employees a little more than just a personal habit or a specific personality. But what exactly was Clinton effective at? He never successfully dealth with al Qeada after the first attack on the WTT which had it succeeded would have resulted in even more deaths and destruction than the second. He never effectively dealt with Saddam, he left both for Bush to deal with and deal with successfully. He came into office on a roaring recovery and almost stymied it with his tax increase. He fought the measures that got it back on track and produced the surpluses, so other than avoiding removal and criminal charges what was he effective at?

On that we certainly agree.

Well no it wasn't and in fact he still had high numbers after the invasion, it was when the Democrats and the MSM realized it was going to hurt Democrats and get him reelected they turned on the efforts and our troops and turned public opinion against the war which aided and abetted our enemies. They became another propaganda arm for them in turning the country against the war.

 

He's been a pretty good president overall. Republicans wouldn't have liked him regardless of what he did or didn't do. And the left has been unrealistic about what can be accomplished in our political environment. For example, why wasn't obamacare a single payer system? It wasn't politically possible; however, the left "believes" otherwise. Outside of the above, the public generally has no clue about what goes on in the world or why. For example, the deficit has been shrinking, but you wouldn't know that by poll numbers. https://today.yougov.com/news/2014/01/30/poll-results-deficit/

His reputation will recover after he is out of office. One day **********s will be shouting "take your dirty government hands off my obamacare" lol

 

Which is causing far more harm than good with people who had good insurance having to go without it now and the cost about to explode.

The disaster was and would have easied without him doing anything, his administration and his policies shot unemployment which his economic advisers said would peak at 8.5% with his stimulus to over 10% and kept it over 9% for almost 4 years, a HORRIBLE record. He and his fellow Democrats took the last Bush/Republican deficit of a paltry $161B and took it to over $1,400B in just two years and kept it over $1,000B for the next four. It is still almost 50% higher than the WORST Bush/Republican deficit and almost 4 times what they inherited so spare me the "dramatically reduced the deficit" they raised to unprecedented and dangerous highs.

WHAT!!!!! You're says Reagan faced no economic crisis??? Are you kidding? And the Democrats in congress authorized MORE spending every year than Reagan requested and they refused to pass all his recissions, so point your finger at the proper people as far as the deficits of the 80's, Tip O'Neal and his fellow Democrats. Instead of the $150B deficits the last three years they would have fallen to $100B had they accepted Reagans spending levels.

Then refute my facts with facts, not Democrat myths.

 

Sorry, but don't think that will happen...I don't understand how you could think he has been "pretty good." Define "pretty good."

 

He had quite a lot of accomplishments. Obamacare, for example, is an accomplishment. His economic policy on the stimulus was an accomplishment. He's had several foreign policy accomplishments.

 

You do realize that the deficit skyrocketed in 2009 when Obama took office and, while it's been coming down since, it's still higher than pre-Obama levels.

 

Wow - it sounds like the present regime. Must be a relation.

 

Of course I do. The deficit was running at a rate of 1.2 trillion the day he took office in 2009. A spike is debt is going to happen in financial crises; otherwise, we wouldn't call them financial crises. People just freaked out because they didn't understand the economics of it. Obama has been a very modest spender, and he has spent less than his predecessors. In fact, he's spending under inflation. CPI is around 12%, he has spent around 7.9%.

 

Because he wasn't qualified to run a small business, much less, the largest business in the world. He was and still is out of his league.

Knew it the first time I heard him speak. Empty suit. Liar. Untrustworthy egomaniac who got into office due to an amazing marketing campaign and being the right color at the right time.

 

The A.G. serves at the request and forbearance of the President. If the A.G. does things that are contemptible and unconstitutional, and the President does not require his resignation, then the President is giving agreement and support to those actions, and is a criminal co-Conspirator in those actions.

In the Samir Shabazz dropping of all charges, as an explanation, Eric Holder stood before the nation and stated that he thought the charges were an affront to "His People", as if some Americans could expect differential treatment and be given the right to commit what crimes by others with impunity. Eric Holder then gave written directives to his DOJ staff that no further charges would be brought against African Americans.

Those who were the subject of the crimes committed by Samir Shabazz are American Citizens. They are guaranteed EQUAL PROTECTION of the LAW by the 14th Amendment of the United States Constitution.

What Eric Holder did was blatantly UnConstitutional!

President Obama shares in the crime, by the fact that he is Eric Holder's Boss, and should have demanded his resignation. That makes President Obama a Co-Conspirator in the Unconstitutional violations of those victim voter 14th Amendment rights.


-----------------------------

This is just one of the more blatant examples of President Obama violations of the Constitution and the LAW.

https://www.committeeforjustice.org/content/25-violations-law-president-obama-and-his-administration

http://www.forbes.com/sites/ilyasha...mas-top-10-constitutional-violations-of-2013/

http://jonathanturley.org/2014/06/2...d-constitution-in-use-of-recess-appointments/

http://dailycaller.com/2011/12/04/president-obamas-top-10-constitutional-violations/

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...reme-court-obama-senate-appointments/8528059/

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/conncarroll/2014/06/03/obamas-war-on-the-constitution-n1846624

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/sep/14/trashing-the-constitution/?page=all



All Presidents have had their flaws and made bad decision or two.

President Obama has gone way out over the cliff in abusing, ignoring, and violating the Constitution and he should be held accountable!

-

 

Is that why corporations hit record breaking profits under obama?

 

Naw. Vietnam will be up there. But good ol' George Bush's legacy will haunt this country well into the next century. By then, Obama will merely be noted as another pretty average President.

 

Historical Rankings of the Presidents http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_rankings_of_Presidents_of_the_United_States


Bush is right down there with Harding, Andrew Johnson, Buchanan and Pierce. Pretty low company. Maybe not the worst, but the worst in a century.

 

LOL, nonsense, the ACA is a success story. And the costs arent about to explode.

Sorry thats rubbish too, most economists think it eased the unemployment rate and today the US is growing better than most places and its deficit is falling dramatically.

He had a recession. Not a world wide financial crisis. And these excuses about what he wanted vs what he got are just weak - you dont give Obama the same lee way so dont expect it for Reagan.

LOL.

 

Obama doesnt have a tremendous record, just a pretty good one.

It is not unreasonable to say that he is a considerable improvement on the previous President across the board.

Anyone that says otherwise is a fraudulent and ignorant partisan coward.

 

You definitely raise a good point. Comparing Barack Obama to the last bad president (G.W. Bush) is pretty much an apples to oranges comparison, and I maintain that judgment despite the fact that -- as others have pointed out on both sides of the political aisle -- Obama's presidency is pretty much an extension of Bush's presidency. Of course Bush approached the economy and warfare from the ideological perspective of an old fashioned Robber Baron style capitalist with the faux trappings of patriotism (either that or Bush was confused about the meaning of patriotism) whereas Obama approaches the economy and warfare from the ideological perspective of a wishy-washy Community Organizer steeped in the economic and cultural mysticism of socialism (among other things). Ironically, the end results have been pretty much identical . . . but not quite.

The key difference between these two God awful presidents is that Bush (in my opinion) started a needless war with Iraq whereas Obama fumbled then lost the strategic gains from the aftermath of
that unnecessary war against Iraq while also still keeping us unnecessarily engaged with Afghanistan.

Now we are in yet another war -- perhaps a necessary one -- but for all of that a war that would not have occurred had Obama done the correct things with the Status of Forces Agreement; which both Gates and Panetta (experts with towering reputations) agree that he fumbled.

So from a moral standpoint I put Obama just barely ahead of G.W. Bush; but for the reasons listed (and there are still more) only JUST ahead of Bush so far as moral superiority goes. In other words, both men are essentially gutter sweepings in regards to this nation's history of presidents.