Quantcast
Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
    1. Welcome to GTAForums!

    1. Red Dead Redemption 2

      1. PC
      2. Gameplay
      3. Missions
      4. Help & Support
    2. Red Dead Online

      1. Gameplay
      2. Find Lobbies & Outlaws
      3. Help & Support
      4. Frontier Pursuits
    1. Crews & Posses

      1. Recruitment
    2. Events

    1. GTA Online

      1. Diamond Casino & Resort
      2. DLC
      3. Find Lobbies & Players
      4. Guides & Strategies
      5. Vehicles
      6. Content Creator
      7. Help & Support
    2. Grand Theft Auto Series

    3. GTA 6

    4. GTA V

      1. PC
      2. Guides & Strategies
      3. Help & Support
    5. GTA IV

      1. Episodes from Liberty City
      2. Multiplayer
      3. Guides & Strategies
      4. Help & Support
      5. GTA IV Mods
    6. GTA Chinatown Wars

    7. GTA Vice City Stories

    8. GTA Liberty City Stories

    9. GTA San Andreas

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
      3. GTA SA Mods
    10. GTA Vice City

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
      3. GTA VC Mods
    11. GTA III

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
      3. GTA III Mods
    12. Top Down Games

      1. GTA Advance
      2. GTA 2
      3. GTA
    13. Wiki

      1. Merchandising
    1. GTA Modding

      1. GTA V
      2. GTA IV
      3. GTA III, VC & SA
      4. Tutorials
    2. Mod Showroom

      1. Scripts & Plugins
      2. Maps
      3. Total Conversions
      4. Vehicles
      5. Textures
      6. Characters
      7. Tools
      8. Other
      9. Workshop
    3. Featured Mods

      1. DYOM
      2. OpenIV
      3. GTA: Underground
      4. GTA: Liberty City
      5. GTA: State of Liberty
    1. Red Dead Redemption

    2. Rockstar Games

    1. Off-Topic

      1. General Chat
      2. Gaming
      3. Technology
      4. Programming
      5. Movies & TV
      6. Music
      7. Sports
      8. Vehicles
    2. Expression

      1. Graphics / Visual Arts
      2. GFX Requests & Tutorials
      3. Writers' Discussion
      4. Debates & Discussion
    1. News

    2. Forum Support

    3. Site Suggestions

Megumi

Was Obama a good president?

Recommended Posts

RollsReus1959

Exactly. Just like Clinton compared to GW Bush. Clinton was mediocre. He did the job, and didn't destroy the world, but the next guy came in and plunged us into a war we couldn't afford and seemed like he was way under qualified. Obama was better than Clinton, and Trump is worse than Bush. So that'll catapult Obama up the list.

 

In my opinion, he did a lot of good. He tried to get healthcare for people who couldn't afford it, he championed LGBT rights, was great for real human rights issues, and allowed the economy to recover. But he did do some crazy sh*t. Condemning whistle blowers, leaving the door open for spying on his own citizens, and his drug policies haven't been the best. Overall, he did good.

 

I've always loved the "right's" insistence that he's terrible. As a Republican myself (a sentence I say way too much nowadays), I've never seen it.

How is Ttump worse than Bush. He hasn't been President for a week.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tchuck

The looting and rioting from the BLM terrorist could have been avoided if Obama addressed the issue.

 

Or if, god forbid, police officers stopped shooting black men for the smallest things. Like having a car broken down on the highway. Or sitting in his backyard eating some chicken. I mean, surely the fault isn't Obama for what are largely state and local issues, right?

 

 

Instead he said it could have been his son. This caused riots all across America. He left the nation very divided.

 

That's because it could have been. His statement was supposed to shock the population, showing them that no black person is safe in America. No matter how young or how old, all it takes is one racist cop looking for some negro to shoot down. That's the whole friggin point. Should he just have bowed down and said "oh well, boys will be boys!" and left it at that? f*ck that.

 

 

He doesn't love America. He wanted to fundamentally change America, his words, with progressive policies that don't fit the American culture.

 

Of course he wants to change America: to the BETTER!

And pray tell how do his policies not fit with American culture? And pray tell, what IS American culture?

 

 

His foreign policy was atrocious. Ransom money to Iran and giving Iran uranium in his last 3 weeks of office. Nobody hears about these things because the media won't report it.

 

That his foreign policy was poor is up for debate, for sure. I will need a source on your statement, though.

 

 

His claim to fame is that he is the first Black president even though most people feel MLK

Is the first Black president.

 

Well, doesn't matter what most people feel. He is the de facto first Black president (I'll also need a source on your statement that "most people" feel that way). But that's not his claim to fame, either. f*ck, he doesn't have any claims to fame because he's not an insecure thin-skinned manchild that needs assurance at every point. He's leaving the office with his head held high based on the many good things he did or tried to do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sivispacem

He's been very divisive in my opinion. The looting and rioting from the BLM terrorist could have been avoided if Obama addressed the issue

And how would you propose this be done? Are you of the view that the grievances expressed by the BLM movement are not legitimate? If Obama had addressed the issue in a legislative manner, do you really think that the litany of Republican lawmakers, senators and representatives who are currently lining up to kiss the ring of a cryptofascist and submit to the policy ideas if his alt-right buddies would have let it stand?

 

Casting BLM as "terrorists" is patently ridiculous too.

 

He doesn't love America. He wanted to fundamentally change America, his words, with progressive policies that don't fit the American culture.

This is an absurd combination of non sequitur and No True Scotsman fallacy. Can someone not love America and yet still want to instill change in it? Is trying instill societal change somehow intrinsically unamerican? Has there not been dramatic and fundamental change in America's cultural and political norms over the last, say, five decades? Culture is an inherently fluid concept.

 

His foreign policy was atrocious. Ransom money to Iran and giving Iran uranium in his last 3 weeks of office. Nobody hears about these things because the media won't report it.

This is particularly laughable. "The Iran nuclear deal is a ransom and they're still enriching Uranium and it's not reported because of a media conspiracy", seriously? Let's ignore the fact that the UN agencies and wider international community are of the view that whatever nuclear programme Iran may have been running for military purposes is no longer operation, the IAEA has found no evidence of conitued Iranian enrichment capabilities beyond what's permissible, relations between Iran and the wider Western world are improving rapidly and the only people who continue to support a hawkish attitude to the issue in political spheres are either the same morons who misrepresented intelligence estimates on Iraqi WMD programmes or closet white nationalists and American exceptionalists. Or Israel, who as a nation state have basically become a parody of themselves.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DareYokel

He's been very divisive in my opinion. The looting and rioting from the BLM terrorist could have been avoided if Obama addressed the issue. Instead he said it could have been his son. This caused riots all across America. He left the nation very divided.

The only reason why Obama is considered to be divisive by some is the fact that racist f*cktards couldn't handle the idea of a black man in the White House.

And you know what could have stopped looting and rioting? Not shooting at unarmed black people for decades and getting away with it, not arresting them disproportionally to whites despite the fact that as far as drug offenses go whites are at the very least just as likely to engage in drug related activities.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DangerZ0neX

Was Obama a good president? No.

 

He gave us Trump.

How? Just because he's the previous president, he's suddenly the reason why Trump got elected?

 

================================

Trump got elected because of two things:-

 

1) The outdated Electoral College system, even though 3 million more people voted for Hillary.

 

2) Exploiting the under-educated who thought that rich reality TV star would give them their old jobs back.

================================

 

Guess what? The latter were cheated and lied to, all Trump will do now is let the 1% hog an even bigger amount of the wealth while screwing over the working class even more. Hell, the GOP removed their affordable healthcare to let insurance companies profit some more, they'd rather make more money at the expense of human lives. Literally.

 

Obama was one hell of a good president, he certainly never wished for Trump and advocated against him multiple times, but he still tried his best to patch things up for a respectable and clean transfer of power. Trump will never be that humble.

Edited by DangerZ0neX

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RollsReus1959

 

He's been very divisive in my opinion. The looting and rioting from the BLM terrorist could have been avoided if Obama addressed the issue. Instead he said it could have been his son. This caused riots all across America. He left the nation very divided.

The only reason why Obama is considered to be divisive by some is the fact that racist f*cktards couldn't handle the idea of a black man in the White House.

And you know what could have stopped looting and rioting? Not shooting at unarmed black people for decades and getting away with it, not arresting them disproportionally to whites despite the fact that as far as drug offenses go whites are at the very least just as likely to engage in drug related activities.

I disagree.

 

Surely if these racists didn't want a black man in office then they could have created chaos like many towards Trump right?

 

Seems like more violence is occurring towards a White man in Trump than a Black man in Obama.

 

If racists can give Obama a chance than surely these tolerant liberals and anti-Trumpers can do the same. They shouldn't be outclassed by 'racists'.

Edited by RollsReus1959

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Twang.

Cons:

-drone strikes kill a lot of civilians

-unprecedented levels of surveillance

-ACA was hot garbage

-was not particularly proactive in providing economic relief to middle America

 

The first two would have been done by any president in his place, and the ACA was a failure because it had to be compromised to get passed by Repubs. The last one is a problem, but it's yet to be seen if he even could have done anything. Would have been nice to see some effort.

 

Pros:

-dignified as f*ck, and very personable

-has handled the ISIS situation really well

-never even tried to "take are gunz"

-his calculated demeanor was a stabilizing force worldwide. Unlike his predecessor and successor, no one was ever wondering "what insanity is this asshole gonna do next?" and foreign governments could count on the US to do something reasonable (even if controversial).

-he actually selected people who were qualified to be in his cabinet, and often without regard to partisanship. The same could probably be said about the previous 42 presidents, but I think this is one thing we're really going to come to appreciate over the next four years.

 

The dude was really good at his role as a figurehead. His light-handed approach to 'world policing' has been refreshing, but unfortunately the results won't show up for at least a few years. Such ramifications may take a long time to ultimately show themselves. Hell, we're still dealing with W's f*ck-ups to this day.

 

So, yeah, he was a reasonably competent and effective president. Given the nature of the office though, I'm gonna have to agree with MTD when he says there's no such thing as a 'good president.'

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
El Dildo

I disagree.

well, you're wrong, and The Yokel is right.

because that's reality.

 

these 2 parties have gone back and forth for over 100 years.

but Congressional Democrats never openly disrespected or completely blockaded a Republican president. never. ever. Liberal presidents and Conservative presidents went back and forth with relative cooperation between lawmakers for decades... until President Black Man took office. and then immediately Congressional Republicans began openly questioning Obama's citizenship and birthright and openly talking about their plans to obstruct anything he did. they openly admitted that their only goal was to limit Obama to being a one-term president.

 

and when they failed at that they spent the next 4 years sticking their heads in the sand and throwing a temper tantrum about how much they hated Liberals and hated Obama and hated gay people and hated immigrants. the GOP is the party of the small minded children. the GOP and their leadership and their rhetoric are directly responsible for the division we witnessed during Obama's term in office.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DareYokel

 

 

He's been very divisive in my opinion. The looting and rioting from the BLM terrorist could have been avoided if Obama addressed the issue. Instead he said it could have been his son. This caused riots all across America. He left the nation very divided.

The only reason why Obama is considered to be divisive by some is the fact that racist f*cktards couldn't handle the idea of a black man in the White House.

And you know what could have stopped looting and rioting? Not shooting at unarmed black people for decades and getting away with it, not arresting them disproportionally to whites despite the fact that as far as drug offenses go whites are at the very least just as likely to engage in drug related activities.

I disagree.

 

Surely if these racists didn't want a black man in office then they could have created chaos like many towards Trump right?

 

Seems like more violence is occurring towards a White man in Trump than a Black man in Obama.

 

If racists can give Obama a chance than surely these tolerant liberals and anti-Trumpers can do the same. They shouldn't be outclassed by 'racists'.

Racists and conservatives in general tend to be cowards. Authority loving freaks usually are. Liberals are rebellious by nature. It's what makes them liberals in the first place. A lot of them even have anarchistic tendencies. So all forms of protests come a lot more naturally to them.

Edited by The Yokel

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tchuck

 

 

He's been very divisive in my opinion. The looting and rioting from the BLM terrorist could have been avoided if Obama addressed the issue. Instead he said it could have been his son. This caused riots all across America. He left the nation very divided.

The only reason why Obama is considered to be divisive by some is the fact that racist f*cktards couldn't handle the idea of a black man in the White House.

And you know what could have stopped looting and rioting? Not shooting at unarmed black people for decades and getting away with it, not arresting them disproportionally to whites despite the fact that as far as drug offenses go whites are at the very least just as likely to engage in drug related activities.

I disagree.

 

Surely if these racists didn't want a black man in office then they could have created chaos like many towards Trump right?

 

Seems like more violence is occurring towards a White man in Trump than a Black man in Obama.

 

If racists can give Obama a chance than surely these tolerant liberals and anti-Trumpers can do the same. They shouldn't be outclassed by 'racists'.

 

 

You're wrong.

 

To start off, racists DIDN'T give Obama a chance. They kept on bitching and trying to find reasons to justify their racism of him, and the republicans by and large did their best to try and stop anything he ever attempted. f*ck, they're still doing it now, after he already left office, calling his wife a monkey, talking about how they were looting the white house while leaving, talking about the despicable things they would looooove to do to his daughters now that they are older.

 

And more violence against Trump than Obama? Sure. But look at the motives. The violence and hatred towards Obama was largely due to him being a black man. The violence and hatred towards Trump is largely due to his complete failure as a human being, his behavior during the campaign, his ridiculous insane promises, and the grim outlook for non-white-men in America. One is largely justified, one isn't.

 

And we have some more questions from your previous post up there. Care to address them?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Svip

-he actually selected people who were qualified to be in his cabinet, and often without regard to partisanship. The same could probably be said about the previous 42 presidents

*cough* Harding *cough*

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
cj2000

the level of candor, insight, wisdom, empathy, and intelligence displayed by Barack Obama is amazing on it's face value.

it's about 10x more amazing when you compare it with the abject buffoon and cartoon of a man who's about to replace him.

 

c'est la vie

 

 

 

take a good look at the last normal, sensible, reasonable, and honest press conference you're ever going to see for about 4 years...

I would like to take a look at such conference, you was tallking about, but it was not on the video, instead I saw only that clown, called Obama. Comeon people, how old are you all? You must be really naive to beleave all that sh*t Obama was tallking all 8 years, he was president. Trump is a much better president, but hi´s getting bashed by the media.

23f767cbf104.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sivispacem

You're not really in any position to be accusing other people of being naïve given your contributions thusfar.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
cj2000

You're not really in any position to be accusing other people of being naïve given your contributions thusfar.

At least I never beleaved in that sh*t Obama was tallking about. Also You didn´t answered my question, about which of the promisses, Obama gave befor becoming president, he has fulfiled. Even if you say, I was exaggurating about WW3 stuff, what about the rest?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ten-a-penny

 

You're not really in any position to be accusing other people of being naïve given your contributions thusfar.

At least I never beleaved in that sh*t Obama was tallking about. Also You didn´t answered my question, about which of the promisses, Obama gave befor becoming president, he has fulfiled. Even if you say, I was exaggurating about WW3 stuff, what about the rest?

You're acting as if EVERY country leader has fulfilled their promises.

 

Let that sink in your mind: Just because a president/king/whateverthef*ckever hadn't fulfilled EVERY promise they gave, doesn't mean that they're sh*t leaders.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sivispacem

 

You're not really in any position to be accusing other people of being naïve given your contributions thusfar.

At least I never beleaved in that sh*t Obama was tallking about. Also You didn´t answered my question, about which of the promisses, Obama gave befor becoming president, he has fulfiled. Even if you say, I was exaggurating about WW3 stuff, what about the rest?This has already been addressed by Svip, whose posted a fairly lengthy analysis of campaign pledges made by Obama and those fulfilled versus other presidents. I see no need to redo analysis that someone else has done and anyway, the burden of proof is on you as the individual making the claim to prove that Obama's rate of pledges to policies is abnormally low compared to other presidential figures facing similar political circumstances.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Svip

Also You didn´t answered my question, about which of the promisses, Obama gave befor becoming president, he has fulfiled.

Out of 533 promises, President Obama fulfilled 258 promises (48.4%). Of course, out of his five top promises (closing Gitmo, restricting warrantless wiretaps, securing the border, mandatory minimum sentence reform and a "universal" healthcare bill) he only fulfilled one (namely the mandatory minimums reform), with three of them becoming compromises and unable to fulfil his promise to close Gitmo.

 

Sure, 48.4% is below average for politicians (which is about 67%), but most of his promises were blocked by a Republican controlled Congress.

Edited by Svip

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sivispacem

Restrictions on warrantless wiretapping have also been technically implemented, though the level of restriction is open to debate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alihunter

Just saying. He didnt give iran uranium.

(@ a guy just mentiond)

 

Anyway, i guess even if we compare with 'worse' and 'worst', trump is "second" one.

His policies lol, Maybe good for U.S but ain't good for rest of earth.

Edited by Alihunter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
cj2000

Just saying. He didnt give iran uranium.

(@ a guy just mentiond)

 

Anyway, i guess even if we compare with 'worse' and 'worst', trump is "second" one.

His policies lol, Maybe good for U.S but ain't good for rest of earth.

Trump is president of the USA, so he should be good for USA and not the rest of the world. So the politic of America first ia a corect one for President of USA. Politic of the own country first is something that should be normal for every leader of a country.

 

 

You're not really in any position to be accusing other people of being naïve given your contributions thusfar.

At least I never beleaved in that sh*t Obama was tallking about. Also You didn´t answered my question, about which of the promisses, Obama gave befor becoming president, he has fulfiled. Even if you say, I was exaggurating about WW3 stuff, what about the rest?
This has already been addressed by Svip, whose posted a fairly lengthy analysis of campaign pledges made by Obama and those fulfilled versus other presidents. I see no need to redo analysis that someone else has done and anyway, the burden of proof is on you as the individual making the claim to prove that Obama's rate of pledges to policies is abnormally low compared to other presidential figures facing similar political circumstances.

 

I am not refusing that Obama have fulfilled some of his promisses, but diferent promises have diferent weights. Some of his promisses he should better not have fullfiled.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
cj2000

Exactly. Just like Clinton compared to GW Bush. Clinton was mediocre. He did the job, and didn't destroy the world, but the next guy came in and plunged us into a war we couldn't afford and seemed like he was way under qualified. Obama was better than Clinton, and Trump is worse than Bush. So that'll catapult Obama up the list.

 

In my opinion, he did a lot of good. He tried to get healthcare for people who couldn't afford it, he championed LGBT rights, was great for real human rights issues, and allowed the economy to recover. But he did do some crazy sh*t. Condemning whistle blowers, leaving the door open for spying on his own citizens, and his drug policies haven't been the best. Overall, he did good.

 

I've always loved the "right's" insistence that he's terrible. As a Republican myself (a sentence I say way too much nowadays), I've never seen it.

I already mentioned, that I am not a fan of Bush and his Iraq Comain was the bigest mistake he ever made, but Clinton had an oportunity to arest or kill Binladen, but he had "more important things" to do, like sex games with Monika. If Clinton would use that chance 9/11 would never hepen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ten-a-penny

Trump is president of the USA, so he should be good for USA and not the rest of the world. So the politic of America first ia a corect one for President of USA. Politic of the own country first is something that should be normal for every leader of a country.

Yeah, except that 'Murica is the ruling country of the world. So, OBVIOUSLY, whoever is President of the US is also a "President" (well, kinda) of the rest of the country.

 

 

Duuuuuuuuuuh.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alihunter

Trump is president of the USA, so he should be good for USA and not the rest of the world. So the politic of America first ia a corect one for President of USA. Politic of the own country first is something that should be normal for every leader of a country.

And controling U.S guy on whole world, is an obvious thing too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Svip

I already mentioned, that I am not a fan of Bush and his Iraq Comain was the bigest mistake he ever made, but Clinton had an oportunity to arest or kill Binladen, but he had "more important things" to do, like sex games with Monika. If Clinton would use that chance 9/11 would never hepen.

When did Clinton have an opportunity to arrest or kill bin Laden? Did they have a meeting I've forgotten about? After the 1998 embassy bombings, he was pretty high on the CIA's and FBI's most wanted lists.

 

President Bush spent 7 years trying to catch the guy, but didn't manage, what makes you think President Clinton could easily have done it, but just neglected to? Did he know where he was but didn't tell anyone?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
cj2000

 

I already mentioned, that I am not a fan of Bush and his Iraq Comain was the bigest mistake he ever made, but Clinton had an oportunity to arest or kill Binladen, but he had "more important things" to do, like sex games with Monika. If Clinton would use that chance 9/11 would never hepen.

When did Clinton have an opportunity to arrest or kill bin Laden? Did they have a meeting I've forgotten about? After the 1998 embassy bombings, he was pretty high on the CIA's and FBI's most wanted lists.

 

President Bush spent 7 years trying to catch the guy, but didn't manage, what makes you think President Clinton could easily have done it, but just neglected to? Did he know where he was but didn't tell anyone?

 

Sudan, where Binladen lived at that time, ofered to arest him and send to USA.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sivispacem

I am not refusing that Obama have fulfilled some of his promisses, but diferent promises have diferent weights. Some of his promisses he should better not have fullfiled.

So now you've been shown as demonstrably wrong you want to move the goalposts and attempt, rather blatantly, to recategorise what you've already claimed?

 

Sudan, where Binladen lived at that time, ofered to arest him and send to USA.

This isn't even remotely close to true. The 9/11 commission established that no credible evidence existed to corroborate the claim- by a single Sudanese politician- that the Sudanese state had ever offered to transfer Bin Laden to the US for trial. Indeed, this is entirely at odds with the position of the Sudanese government between 1994 and 1996 who sought to send bin Laden back to Saudi Arabia but could not because he'd been stripped of citizenship and was therefore stateless.

 

Bin Laden also left Sudan in 1996 to return to Afghanistan, some two years before the 1998 bombings in Nairobi and Dar Es Salaam.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DareYokel

President Bush spent 7 years trying to catch the guy, but didn't manage, what makes you think President Clinton could easily have done it, but just neglected to? Did he know where he was but didn't tell anyone?

Oh totally. Bill knew but he didn't want to tell Bush because he's secretly a Muslim.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
JOSEPH X

Only president to be at war for two full terms

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sivispacem

Technically, the US wasn't at war at any point in Obama's presidency.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Svip

Nor was any President since Truman.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • 1 User Currently Viewing
    0 members, 0 Anonymous, 1 Guest

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using GTAForums.com, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.