Michael Moore's opinion on Barack Obama

To post in this sub-forum you must have made 100 posts or have Trust status or have completed our ID Verification

Forums › Politics › Michael Moore's opinion on Barack Obama - is he being too harsh?

1 | 2 | 3

13684 posts

Uber Geek

#2033596 11-Jun-2018 12:02

Wiggum:

I think Obamas biggest failure was the bill of $7trillion dollars that he left behind him.

Most US presidents would have been big failures in your opinion then. Reagan a clear failure, but I guess you'd have to have liked Bill Clinton.

Lenovo

Shop now for Lenovo laptops and other devices (affiliate link).

Wiggum

1199 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#2033613 11-Jun-2018 12:26

Fred99:

Wiggum:

I think Obamas biggest failure was the bill of $7trillion dollars that he left behind him.

Most US presidents would have been big failures in your opinion then. Reagan a clear failure, but I guess you'd have to have liked Bill Clinton.

U.S. Debt by President: By Dollar and Percent

Barack Obama: Added $8.588 trillion, a 74 percent increase from the $11.657 trillion debt at the end of Bush’s last budget, FY 2009.

FY 2017 - $672 billion.
FY 2016 - $1.423 trillion.
FY 2015 - $327 billion.
FY 2014 - $1.086 trillion.
FY 2013 - $672 billion.
FY 2012 - $1.276 trillion.
FY 2011 - $1.229 trillion.
FY 2010 - $1.652 trillion.
FY 2009 - $253 billion. (Congress passed the Economic Stimulus Act, which spent $253 billion in FY 2009. This rare occurrence should be added to President Obama's contribution to the debt.)

Rikkitic

Awrrr
18563 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#2033628 11-Jun-2018 12:46

6FIEND:

MikeB4: He is a Hollywood reporter. I stopped at that. Opinion means zero.

For you, and for all the rest who are unable to see beyond the messenger and hear the message, here is an alternate commentary from a reporter at the Boston Globe.

Key Highlights (for brevity):

In almost every respect, Obama leaves behind a trail of failure and disappointment
the economy’s rebound under Obama was the worst in seven decades. Annual GDP growth since the recession ended has averaged a feeble 2.1 percent, by far the puniest economic performance of any president since World War II
Obama spent more public funds on “stimulus” than all previous stimulus programs combined, with wretched, counterproductive results
millions of additional Americans fell below the poverty line. The number of food stamp recipients soared
The national debt doubled to an incredible $20 trillion
In 2008, when Obama was first elected president, 63 percent of Americans considered themselves middle class. Seven years later, only 51 percent still felt the same way
Obamacare has been a fiasco. At least 27 million Americans are still without health insurance
Obamacare sent premiums and deductibles skyrocketing
In his rush to pull US troops out of Iraq and Afghanistan, he created a power vacuum into which terror networks expanded and the Taliban revived.
Obama and his lieutenants insisted that Syrian dictator Bashar Assad could be induced to “reform,” and pointedly refused to intervene as an uprising against him metastasized into genocidal slaughter
Determined to conciliate America’s adversaries, the president indulged dictatorial regimes in Iran, Russia, and Cuba. They in turn exploited his passivity with multiple treacheries — seizing Crimea and destroying Aleppo (Russia), abducting American hostages for ransom and illicitly testing long-range missiles (Iran), and cracking down mercilessly on democratic dissidents (Cuba).
The consequences have been stark: a Middle East awash in blood and bombs, US troops re-embroiled in Iraq and Afghanistan, aggressive dictators ascendant, human rights and democracy in retreat, rivers of refugees destabilizing nations across three continents,
If you take only one point away from this post, let it be this:

Nobel Peace Prize winner Obama authorized the release of more bombs throughout his presidency than any other US President.

(...though Trump is rapidly catching up ;-)

I find your reactionary rant too dreary and boring to bother going through it line by line so will just comment that there seems to be a slight discrepancy between 'dropping more bombs' than any president in history yet rushing to withdraw troops, refusing to intervene in Syria, indulging dictatorial regimes and causing general mayhem through an inability to act. One wonders what all those bombs were for.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

6FIEND

774 posts

Ultimate Geek
Inactive user

#2033629 11-Jun-2018 12:46

MikeB4:

6FIEND:

MikeB4: He is a Hollywood reporter. I stopped at that. Opinion means zero.

For you, and for all the rest who are unable to see beyond the messenger and hear the message, here is an alternate commentary (snip)

One day it may just happen, I am not holding my breath but maybe just maybe you will start a post without a snarky or a thinly veiled jibe.

Before posting this response, did you (for even a moment) stop to consider that the entirety of your reply was to take issue with the person making the argument, and completely avoids the substance of the point that they were making?

Thank you for so clearly illustrating my point.

Wiggum

1199 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#2033636 11-Jun-2018 12:55

Rikkitic:

I find your reactionary rant too dreary and boring to bother going through it line by line .....

Perhaps you could contribute with some valid data next time, instead of your usual few lines emotion-based ploys.

MikeAqua

7769 posts

Uber Geek

#2033638 11-Jun-2018 12:58

Rikkitic:

Can't have a president who is intelligent, urbane, thoughtful, well-read, sophisticated. That would be un-American.

People who match that description generally fail to deliver in politics - not just in America.

Sadly, principals and reason have little place in politics, in the English speaking world - whatever party you stand for.

The shorter the 'news cycle' gets, the more this is the case.

Mike

MikeB4

18435 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#2033648 11-Jun-2018 13:07

6FIEND:

MikeB4:

6FIEND:

MikeB4: He is a Hollywood reporter. I stopped at that. Opinion means zero.

For you, and for all the rest who are unable to see beyond the messenger and hear the message, here is an alternate commentary (snip)

One day it may just happen, I am not holding my breath but maybe just maybe you will start a post without a snarky or a thinly veiled jibe.

Before posting this response, did you (for even a moment) stop to consider that the entirety of your reply was to take issue with the person making the argument, and completely avoids the substance of the point that they were making?

Thank you for so clearly illustrating my point.

And thank you for providing another example of my point. Over and out.

Rikkitic

Awrrr
18563 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#2033649 11-Jun-2018 13:09

Wiggum:

Rikkitic:

I find your reactionary rant too dreary and boring to bother going through it line by line .....

Perhaps you could contribute with some valid data next time, instead of your usual few lines emotion-based ploys.

Perhaps you could contribute with a valid criticism next time, instead of a pointless dig.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

6FIEND

774 posts

Ultimate Geek
Inactive user

#2033650 11-Jun-2018 13:11

@Rikkitic

You have previously explained to me that I have almost zero chance of changing your mind with facts, so I'll refrain from endeavouring to do so. But to address the key point that you raised, the record number of bombs (predominantly via drone strikes) was deemed necessary because of the dogmatic withdrawal of troops from the Middle East and the resulting power shift in the region.

Also, for clarity - the "rant" was neither mine (it was published in a US Newspaper) nor was it reactionary. (It was in fact a reflective piece written at the conclusion of the Obama presidency.)

Fred99

13684 posts

Uber Geek

#2033651 11-Jun-2018 13:12

MikeAqua:

Rikkitic:

Can't have a president who is intelligent, urbane, thoughtful, well-read, sophisticated. That would be un-American.

People who match that description generally fail to deliver in politics - not just in America.

Sadly, principals and reason have little place in politics, in the English speaking world - whatever party you stand for.

The shorter the 'news cycle' gets, the more this is the case.

It's much worse than that. It seems that in this thread, the fact that he was intelligent, urbane, thoughtful, well-read, and sophisticated is being used as part of an argument to discredit achievements he did make.

And that used as a counter to the truth that the world now has to deal with a President of the US who is an ignorant, illiterate, insulting pig.

Rikkitic

Awrrr
18563 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#2033657 11-Jun-2018 13:20

6FIEND:

@Rikkitic

You have previously explained to me that I have almost zero chance of changing your mind with facts, so I'll refrain from endeavouring to do so. But to address the key point that you raised, the record number of bombs (predominantly via drone strikes) was deemed necessary because of the dogmatic withdrawal of troops from the Middle East and the resulting power shift in the region.

Also, for clarity - the "rant" was neither mine (it was published in a US Newspaper) nor was it reactionary. (It was in fact a reflective piece written at the conclusion of the Obama presidency.)

Since you chose to present it with implied approval, you took ownership. That makes it yours.

I am happy to change my mind when presented with real facts (as opposed to massaged ones). I think Obama made some big mistakes and he disappointed me. That does not mean I agree with the rabid spewing in the opinionated piece you quoted.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

MikeAqua

7769 posts

Uber Geek

#2033752 11-Jun-2018 16:53

Rikkitic:

6FIEND:

@Rikkitic

You have previously explained to me that I have almost zero chance of changing your mind with facts, so I'll refrain from endeavouring to do so. But to address the key point that you raised, the record number of bombs (predominantly via drone strikes) was deemed necessary because of the dogmatic withdrawal of troops from the Middle East and the resulting power shift in the region.

Also, for clarity - the "rant" was neither mine (it was published in a US Newspaper) nor was it reactionary. (It was in fact a reflective piece written at the conclusion of the Obama presidency.)

Since you chose to present it with implied approval, you took ownership. That makes it yours.

Neither the post nor the article referenced seemed like rants to me. I'm not expressing a view on the arguments made, but they were reasoned and considered.

But if you don't want to see reactionary material, why generate it? For example why label stuff you don't agree with as ranting, rather than critique it?

Mike

Rikkitic

Awrrr
18563 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#2033760 11-Jun-2018 17:33

I'm not really interested in spending time and energy going through this point by point. It is one-sided propaganda and in my opinion that qualifies as a rant. Look at the first bullet point: "In almost every respect, Obama leaves behind a trail of failure and disappointment."

As a statement of fact, this simply isn't true. It is very biased opinion. Before the election, many people were asking for some kind of legislation that would allow Obama to run again. If he had been able to run again, he would have easily won, certainly against Trump or any of the other Republican contenders. There was definitely a sense of disappointment, which I share, but portraying Obama's presidency as a 'trail of failure' is a gross misrepresentation. He was a popular president up to the very end. Here is a quote from CNN:

"President Barack Obama will leave office Friday with his highest approval rating since 2009, his presidency largely viewed as a success, and a majority saying they will miss him when he is gone.

A new CNN/ORC poll finds Obama's approval rating stands at 60%, his best mark since June of his first year in office. Compared with other outgoing presidents, Obama lands near the top of the list, outranked only by Bill Clinton's 66% in January 2001 and Ronald Reagan's 64% in January 1989. About two-thirds (65%) say Obama's presidency was a success, including about half (49%) who say that was due to Obama's personal strengths rather than circumstances outside his control."

That is hardly the mark of a failure. This is the last I will say on the subject because I don't feel like wasting my time arguing against slanted self-serving right-wing BS.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

dejadeadnz

2394 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#2033891 11-Jun-2018 20:14

MikeB4:

And thank you for providing another example of my point. Over and out.

Does every thread have to become an opportunity for your virtue signaling?

Reciprocity

169 posts

Master Geek
Inactive user

#2033900 11-Jun-2018 20:24

Rikkitic seems to be mixing up approval and popularity with measurable outcomes.
You can have a very popular leader like Obama who oversees terrible outcomes. Jacinda is shaping up to be another that fits this description.

But I’m not sure how a commentary on US politics can be “self serving” for us kiwis... I’m drawing a blank there

1 | 2 | 3