“I think it’s going to require a little bit less navel-gazing and a little less whining and being in fetal positions. And it’s going to require Democrats to just toughen up,” Obama said at the fundraiser
“I think it’s going to require a little bit less navel-gazing and a little less whining and being in fetal positions. And it’s going to require Democrats to just toughen up,” Obama said at the fundraiser
No no. He came in with a latex spine. Take a look at his cabinet. He did the job rather well but change was never going to come with that group.
Your economic false dichotomy is funny though. There were a whole range of options like nationalization and criminal charges for executives that did not get explored because centrism.
Hindsight is 20/20.
But no. There was no criminal charges afoot this is why I’m calling y’all idealists. Do you think this country is or was or is going to be clean enough to do any of that, ever?
Maybe if you do some shady shit too to get it done. But by the book as you’re suggesting? No fuckin way.
He did run on “change”. What’s your point? Mindless centrism is realistic? Mine is Obama didn’t get much done, his greatest legacy is the ACA and that is being undone as we speak because of his failures elsewhere.
Runs a parallel to Biden doing alright generally but completely failing on Merrick Garland negating everything else he did.
Unfortunately kinda yes. Ever had to make choices for a lot of people?? Usually the middle ground is where you’ll land.
Honestly I don’t agree at all. I think Obama’s greatest criticism is how he handled Russia/Georgia. But again that’s a tough call, you gonna drag America into a second theater of war when everyone is already mad about the first one and calling you a warmonger for literally no reason.
I just don’t think he’s made such awful decisions as you all are pushing.
for no reason? LOL Maybe the reason people call him a warmonger is that he continuously pushed for more war, expanded the military, and killed innocent people.
150,000 deployed to 20,000. Less casualties on both sides. In a war he didn’t start under a military industry that you’re witnessing the power of in Israel. People think it’s solely Israel holding everyone by the balls, learn about Krupp’s impact on WWI.
Roll my fuckin eyes.
Well, I’m sure the dead kids that he bombed will be happy to hear that he killed less of them than the previous administration. What a relief!
Who is claiming that’s okay though? And why are you acting like such a tool about it? You’re literally treating it like Obama himself targeted kids. 150,000 to 20,000, both sides experience less casualties. That’s a fantastic step up, Obama is correctly leading to a proper solution as best he can. Stop making human suffering a political bludgeoning instrument
The way you paint it, any war makes all combatants bad guys permanently and you’re too immature to spot people trying in a fucked situation… You can believe war is evil and bad and cruel but also be forced to engage in one.
Bush invaded and leveled a country to be unable to hold itself up. Obama chose to try and install support, that’s what neoliberalism does. As much as you wanna believe it, he literally can’t just sign a paper and magically make it all go away. He has to present a solution, criticize it and judge it all you want but calling him a warmonger and being so ignorant about the actual steps taken to reduce suffering is just stupid of you.
lol, you are. You are literally saying he’s not such a bad guy, because he killed less people.
I don’t disagree that wars are sometimes a necessary evil, but that wasn’t the case under Obama. He got into power, and continued on with Bush’s policy of unnecessary war. He could have stopped, but he chose to continue.
You can keep saying that he had no power all you want, but he did, and you saying “nu-uh” doesn’t change that fact.