The Secrets of Obama's Underappreciated Success

Obama_2012

Really Really Experienced
Joined
Sep 14, 2010
Posts
309
Barack Obama's right-wing opponents cast him as a socialist failure. His left-wing hecklers see him as an overcautious hedger. But, critics notwithstanding, the President is on a path to be a huge success by the time of November's midterm elections.

Before the jabberers on the right (What about the huge debt, the broken tax pledge, the paucity of overseas accomplishments?), the yammerers on the left (Guantánamo hasn't been closed, gays aren't serving openly in the military, and too many policies cater to business interests) and the chides in the media (POTUS and party poll numbers are down, and Washington is more partisan than ever), look at the two key metrics that underscore Obama's accomplishments. It is too early to assess the ultimate measure of victory: whether the President's actions have been prudent and beneficial, domestically and internationally. But by Election Day 2010, Obama will have soundly achieved many of his chief campaign promises while running a highly competent, scandal-free government. Not bad for a guy whose opponents (in both parties) for the White House suggested that he was too green in national life to know how to do the job — and whose presidency began in the midst of a worldwide economic crisis that demanded urgent attention and commanded much of his focus. (See "Obama's Troubled First Year: Grading Him on the Key Issues.")

Let's start with the competence Obama has shown. As he proved in the campaign, he is a master of personnel decisions, choosing people who are excellent at what they do, but also requiring that they play nicely with others. In the two most vital areas, national security and economic policy, all the President's women and men generally get along well with one another, and have had critical roles in advancing the agenda. It is true that the economics team has some rivalries, and the Administration still hasn't figured out how to overcome its collectively weak public-communications skills on the economy. But overall, the White House is populated by hard workers who are rowing in unison to advance the cause and rarely take their disagreements public through damaging leaks.

Obama's two best personnel decisions are probably the two men serving right below him: Vice President Joe Biden and White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel. Yes, Biden still falls victim to caricature as an irrepressible big mouth and is the butt of late-night jokes. And Emanuel can be overly brash and flutter nerves on Capitol Hill and among Administration allies. But Obama knew what he was getting in both men, and they have performed up to or above his expectations. With their West Wing offices across the hall from each other, Biden and Emanuel often work in tandem, each doing more heavy lifting than is publicly seen or commonly known. Obama — who proved during the campaign that he knows how to maintain control of his operation without micromanaging — sets the tone and overall goals, and then allows his Veep and chief, along with other senior advisers, to execute his plans. (See who's who in Barack Obama's White House.)

Biden has traveled extensively overseas and across the country and has helped coordinate both national security policy and congressional strategy, all while dealing with governors and mayors on the economy. Politically, he is expected to be an asset in the midterms, as he was in 2008, with white working-class voters who appreciate his homely truths and affable manner, and who still haven't warmed to Obama.

As for Emanuel, Obama was intent on selecting a tough, competitive, savvy chief of staff, one who would be able to use the levers of power to advance an agenda through both legislation and executive action. Emanuel unexpectedly found himself in the spotlight last week when he appeared on Charlie Rose and repeated his oft-expressed interest in one day serving as mayor of Chicago. The press flew into a frenzy, and some pundits deemed the remark an unseemly display of ambition. It was, in fact, a reminder of Emanuel's deep ties to his hometown, his reluctance to leave his job as a member of Congress to join the Administration — part of the House leadership, Emanuel was on a direct path to be the Speaker within a decade — and his willingness to bow to Obama's wishes and jettison his long-term plans in order to manage the White House. (See "Obama's One-Year Anniversary: A Mixed Scorecard.")

Emanuel's hand (and his six years of experience in the Clinton Administration) can be seen in many facets of the Administration's operational success. The White House controls the Washington and media agenda on most days, carefully coordinating with Capitol Hill and interest-group partners. Bad news is not allowed to fester. And the greatest asset, the President himself, is deployed with strategic planning and tactical nimbleness.

It's easy to forget what circumstances could be like, what problems Obama might have encountered. Think back just a few years ago, to the last time a young Democrat was swept into the White House on a message of change. Unlike Bill Clinton, especially early in his presidency, Obama has largely maintained control of his public image, preserved the majesty of the office (a job that has become harder than ever because of the toxic freak-show nature of our politico-media culture) and maintained good relations, in public and private, with the armed services brass, the intelligence community and law enforcement.

The passage of the health care bill and the pledge to help Democrats wherever possible with fundraising and political assistance has (for now at least) quieted the Capitol Hill voices that until recently were questioning the White House's competence and commitment. Control of Congress makes things easier, for sure, but so does an absence of indicted, disgraced or bungling appointees. (See what to watch at Obama's health care summit.)

Over the past 16 months, both Biden and Emanuel have expressed concern internally that Obama has been too bold, risking his presidency on big bets. But those disagreements with the President have been fleeting and mostly futile — and, as it happens, unwarranted. So far, most of Obama's big bets have paid off.

The health care bill's passage is, of course, the White House's signal achievement, and was accomplished without revealing the Administration's cognizance (thanks to internal polling and focus groups) of the legislation's stark unpopularity among the public. But beyond health care, Obama acted decisively to stop the world from going into economic depression, after inheriting a mess from his predecessor. Quibble all you wish about the dimensions of the stimulus law or the administration of TARP or the Detroit bailout, but the actions taken were professionally handled, apparently necessary and, so far, constructive. Strikingly underrated by the Washington press corps are Obama's gains on education policy, including a willingness to confront the education establishment on standards for both teachers and students. Overseas, Obama has snagged an arms-reduction deal with Russia, managed the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq exactly as promised, eliminated numerous terrorist leaders through an aggressive targeting operation and laid the groundwork for dealing with Iran and, perhaps, North Korea. (See the five immediate benefits of health reform.)

In the months ahead, the President will likely pass a financial-regulation overhaul (despite this past weekend's snags), manage the confirmation of a second Supreme Court nominee with relatively little commotion, announce the reduction of the U.S. troop level in Iraq to about 50,000, showcase the undercovered gains on education reform, take advantage of the improving economy to tout his stimulus efforts and sharpen his "Obama-Biden future vs. Bush-Cheney past" argument to help stave off massive Democratic losses in November. He also has a decent chance to pass a small-to-medium-size energy bill. True, some promises, like comprehensive immigration reform, will remain on the sidelines, but most of his major goals will be completed or well under way.

Assuming the President will need a game-changing move in the wake of any significant midterm losses, Emanuel has already played a clever bit of inside-baseball, installing his old friend and Clinton Administration ally Bruce Reed as staff director of the bipartisan deficit-reduction commission that is due to make recommendations in December. If there are big Republican electoral gains, expect the analysis from conservatives and the media to be that the country wanted a check on big spending from Washington. That overriding concern could shape the outcome of the elections more than any of Obama's accomplishments or appreciation for the job he has done thus far. The commission's proposals could then be coordinated with an "I get it" message from Obama, providing a bold opening to the second half of his term, as he sets about tackling another campaign promise: long-term deficit reduction. A difficult pledge to achieve, perhaps, but given the President's track record, it is one that shouldn't be dismissed out of hand.


Read more: http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1984460,00.html#ixzz18LFVmN9M
 
Does the fucknuts that wrote all the BS swallow too????? It's obvious he's taking it in the ass...
 
Does the fucknuts that wrote all the BS swallow too????? It's obvious he's taking it in the ass...

I think there were mushrooms involved in the writing of it. You make a good point...maybe mushrooms and lube.
 
Sooo, can anyone point out the falsehoods, or come up with a decent critique?
 
Sooo, can anyone point out the falsehoods, or come up with a decent critique?

Sure.

The health care bill's passage is, of course, the White House's signal achievement, and was accomplished without revealing the Administration's cognizance (thanks to internal polling and focus groups) of the legislation's stark unpopularity among the public. But beyond health care, Obama acted decisively to stop the world from going into economic depression, after inheriting a mess from his predecessor. Quibble all you wish about the dimensions of the stimulus law or the administration of TARP or the Detroit bailout, but the actions taken were professionally handled, apparently necessary and, so far, constructive. Strikingly underrated by the Washington press corps are Obama's gains on education policy, including a willingness to confront the education establishment on standards for both teachers and students. Overseas, Obama has snagged an arms-reduction deal with Russia, managed the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq exactly as promised, eliminated numerous terrorist leaders through an aggressive targeting operation and laid the groundwork for dealing with Iran and, perhaps, North Korea. (See the five immediate benefits of health reform.)

In the months ahead, the President will likely pass a financial-regulation overhaul (despite this past weekend's snags), manage the confirmation of a second Supreme Court nominee with relatively little commotion, announce the reduction of the U.S. troop level in Iraq to about 50,000, showcase the undercovered gains on education reform, take advantage of the improving economy to tout his stimulus efforts and sharpen his "Obama-Biden future vs. Bush-Cheney past" argument to help stave off massive Democratic losses in November. He also has a decent chance to pass a small-to-medium-size energy bill. True, some promises, like comprehensive immigration reform, will remain on the sidelines, but most of his major goals will be completed or well under way.

The healthcare bill wasn't an "accomplishment", it was strong-armed through the congress with a very unsavory approach that involved the blantent bribery of false-acting prima-donnas. The whole affair showed the administration to be the scoundrels that they are who more reflect the gangland truth of their background than the angelic facade they "spun" through the election. This healthcare approach remains a black spot on the country and his administration and will catapult us into further economic miasa if not trimmed or repealed. More importantly, it destroys the last remnants of the protections provided by our national founders in our Constitution against an overbearing, freedom-stealing government.

The "inhereted mess" and pending economic depression that he found when elected was the child bourn of the democratic policies advocated by his own party who'd had the bill-generating and budgeting responsibilities for the government for the two years previously and who'd taken the deficit from a respectable $172B in 2006 (last year with a Republican Congress) to the outragous and growing deficits that he complained about during the election and attributed to his predecessor. He's taken that last Republican deficit of $172B and grown it by a factor of 10 even while he ran against the "excessive" and irresponsible budgets that his party created. He and Barney Frank were complicit in the whole housing mess that Bush tried to trim and I wouldn't be surprised to see their handling of the real estate bubble prosecuted at some point in the future once we get an attorny general who's primary goal is upholding the law rather than serving as a cartoonish witch-hunting liberal attack dog.

The author lauds the President's management of international relations which is laughable. Only one who believes that the USA is tyrannical world player would agree that the world-apology tour was the right thing to do and that our world profile has done anything but deteriorate. Obama has turned us from a stalwart partner in the pursuit of freedom to a fickle friend who cannot be trusted and would as soon turn on friends and praise antagonists in it's quest for child-like approval from duplicitous suitors.

As far as education, Obama has shown himself to be a puppet of the teacher's unions whose false appeal to the welfare of students while masking a narcissitic approach whose only goal is the welfare of the teachers. The whole Michelle Rhee (recongizing she's a democrat too) situation in Washington DC is illustrative of the administration's schizophrenic approach...which is to jettison the great new reforms, tough standards that are starting to show results and emphasis on empiraclel results and instead reset back to the same failed approaches that are the hallmark of the cosey relationship between democrat politicans and union leaders that put the schools in their awful situation in the first place.

The first 75% of the article lauds his choices of Biden and Rahm. Is there anyone else who believes that these were good choices? Rahm is gone already and Biden seems to be on permanent leave (hidden away so he makes no more public gaffs?).

In the article the author doesn't acknowledge the elephant in the room and that is this administrations economic policies which are a tired and old rehash of the many former failed attempts to bring about an illusury democrat utopia where money magically appears to support every crooked scheme they devise to uplift friends who supported them in the election (trial lawyers lobbying to keep byzantine "death" tax laws, unions hoping to gain something from the bankruptcy of American industry when they were the major contributing factor to failure themselves, support for the disgraced ACORN). In fact, this administration's schemes have added significantly to our debt and actually lost progress against their primary goal of restoring a climate that facilitates economic growth and have instead been the stewards of a declining job base.

The one thing I can give this administration credit for is the skillful manipulation of the public press. The administration creates one disaster after another and the press seems to consistently give them the cover to falsely blame others over and over again. While the country descends into economic, political and international misery, fools like the author who penned this article seem to give the weak-minded amongst us the glimmer of hope that the democrat philosophy of governing isn't a complete and utter failure, but just had bad luck once again (and again, and again, and again) and that somehow it was someone elses fault each and every time. They have an uncanny way of pursuing disasterous policies while waving their hands in another direction to create an illusion that the snake oil is really really good for you.

The financial regulation of which he speaks is undefined so far. If patterns hold true, it will be another deal that enriches democrat supportors to the detriment of the rest of the country while the press shamelessly lauds the false but altruistic-sounding title of the law while failing to investigate and report its eventual inevitable economically deleterious ramifications.

As for the last paragraph and the conclusion...did anyone want to tell the author that this last election was in fact a historical rebuke of this administrations lack of effective leadership and not a success in minimizing democrat election losses? It was almost a clean sweep. It seems the dems still have a lot more snake oil left for sale.
 
Last edited:
Bush left office with unemployment at over 8% and on its way up.
Obama's a pussy for extending and increasing the tax cuts that have fucked our country.

Hello more deficits. Repubs and Obama, hand in hand down the path to insovlency.
 
Bush left office with unemployment at over 8% and on its way up.
Obama's a pussy for extending and increasing the tax cuts that have fucked our country.

Hello more deficits. Repubs and Obama, hand in hand down the path to insovlency.

All that's happened so far is that the Republicans have convinced the hapless democrats that tax increases during a recession are not a good idea. This extra spending that the dems insisted upon in the bill is going to spell trouble and additional deficit. This extra spending in the tax cut bill is almost as stupid as Bush's $800 rebate for young and old which turned out to be a stimulus for chinese TV makers and little else.

In both cases, steps should have been taken to permanently reduce the tax burden on American business to give them the incentives for growth (and hiring). The answer is in supply side growth programs that are aimed at reducing the onerous government burdens on AMERICAN goods and services providers and providing an environment conducive to growth (which includes shedding the ridiculous regulatory and audit/review government oversight staff and compliance costs). The reductions in the marginal cost would have helped make our goods and services more competitive at home and overseas (or at least reduced the competitive disadvantage our huge government costs create). They would benefit by: a) recognizing a stable tax environment which would support investing in the future with confidence, b) start hiring to support the continued investment and c) start investing in capital and other resources for growth.

The dems advocate "demand" side programs which are a little helpful (but not much), and don't create the demand they anticipate because the money gets spent broadly and often stimulates businesses in foreign countries more than it stimulates our businesses.

The recently passed tax package is almost meaningless beyond being an avoidence of a job killing/economy killing massive tax increase. It only means that we'll have the same rate for the next 2 years as we've had for the past 10 years (reminder, in 2006 we had 4.6% unemployment). The problem is that government spending has changed dramatically since the dems took over Congress in 2007. The out-of-control spending has to be cut back and it has to be cut back everywhere, the level of spending isn't sustainable. Their utopian plans have once again been shown to be harmful rather than helpful and more like the "Land of Play" in Pinnochio where he's lured off to the promised land of milk and honey only to be slowly but surely converted into a donkey (dependent democrat). We can't keep having Trillion dollar overspending each year...we have to get back to something close to a balanced budget and we have to try to do it without encouraging inflation. Now we also have to make up for the billions in extra spending that the dems have put into the tax cut package. I am relieved that the Omnibus bill didn't pass.

As far as the 8% unemployment...most of that was due to the real estate bubble bursting and that was caused by the dems program to ensure that lending standards were reduced so that anyone could purchase a home that wanted to whether they could afford it or not. If they'd just relaxed the standards though, we probably wouldn't have had much of a problem because the lending companies wouldn't have made loans that they figured would lose money for them. The dems really fixed the deal by guaranteeing the lenders that they'd buy the packaged loans....when the bad loans became toxic as was inevitable...of course the dems blamed Bush (cause that's what they always do) even though Bush was vigorously trying to curtail the whole scheme. He only backed off when the dems started calling him a racist for trying to cut back the ill-fated program. When "blame Bush" didn't pass the believability threshold, they tried to blame the bankers who they'd cajoled, but very few people believed that either.
 
Last edited:
Got any more "secrets" out there that we can discuss?

Want to talk about the energ bill?
 
Yes.

Why is "effective Republican leadership" an oxymoron?

Cute, because it's framed in true leadership with the courage to make difficult decisions that are bounded by real-world knowledge and experience rather than the dems two-faced appeals to come join them in the "Land of Play" where you can have anything you want, but you soon start growing donkey ears and donkey tails. The dems feel the need to critisize it endlessly because they have no governing philosphy of their own...and some people actually believe some of the crap the dems feed the nation.

Anything else you want to know?
 
Last edited:
Cute, because it's framed in true leadership with the courage to make difficult decisions that are bounded by real-world knowledge and experience rather than the dems two-faced appeals to come join them in the "Land of Play" where you can have anything you want, but you soon start growing donkey ears and donkey tails.

Anything else you want to know?
At least you allow that Democrats have ears. Many Republicans seem to lack them, and that means their real-world knowledge and experience is limited.
 
At least you allow that Democrats have ears. Many Republicans seem to lack them, and that means their real-world knowledge and experience is limited.

Hey, thanks for having this dialoge with me. You've been very gracious and haven't reverted to ad hominum attacks. I respect that tremendously.
 
Hey, thanks for having this dialoge with me. You've been very gracious and haven't reverted to ad hominum attacks. I respect that tremendously.
Thank you for the insight of equating Disney films with political positions.

Now I need to add Dumbo to my queue.
 
so how will you spin it, as obama care will not get funding.....so that makes obama care, well on life support?


ouch, just another failed obama idea, Christie for PREZ!


Barack Obama's right-wing opponents cast him as a socialist failure. His left-wing hecklers see him as an overcautious hedger. But, critics notwithstanding, the President is on a path to be a huge success by the time of November's midterm elections.

Before the jabberers on the right (What about the huge debt, the broken tax pledge, the paucity of overseas accomplishments?), the yammerers on the left (Guantánamo hasn't been closed, gays aren't serving openly in the military, and too many policies cater to business interests) and the chides in the media (POTUS and party poll numbers are down, and Washington is more partisan than ever), look at the two key metrics that underscore Obama's accomplishments. It is too early to assess the ultimate measure of victory: whether the President's actions have been prudent and beneficial, domestically and internationally. But by Election Day 2010, Obama will have soundly achieved many of his chief campaign promises while running a highly competent, scandal-free government. Not bad for a guy whose opponents (in both parties) for the White House suggested that he was too green in national life to know how to do the job — and whose presidency began in the midst of a worldwide economic crisis that demanded urgent attention and commanded much of his focus. (See "Obama's Troubled First Year: Grading Him on the Key Issues.")

Let's start with the competence Obama has shown. As he proved in the campaign, he is a master of personnel decisions, choosing people who are excellent at what they do, but also requiring that they play nicely with others. In the two most vital areas, national security and economic policy, all the President's women and men generally get along well with one another, and have had critical roles in advancing the agenda. It is true that the economics team has some rivalries, and the Administration still hasn't figured out how to overcome its collectively weak public-communications skills on the economy. But overall, the White House is populated by hard workers who are rowing in unison to advance the cause and rarely take their disagreements public through damaging leaks.

Obama's two best personnel decisions are probably the two men serving right below him: Vice President Joe Biden and White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel. Yes, Biden still falls victim to caricature as an irrepressible big mouth and is the butt of late-night jokes. And Emanuel can be overly brash and flutter nerves on Capitol Hill and among Administration allies. But Obama knew what he was getting in both men, and they have performed up to or above his expectations. With their West Wing offices across the hall from each other, Biden and Emanuel often work in tandem, each doing more heavy lifting than is publicly seen or commonly known. Obama — who proved during the campaign that he knows how to maintain control of his operation without micromanaging — sets the tone and overall goals, and then allows his Veep and chief, along with other senior advisers, to execute his plans. (See who's who in Barack Obama's White House.)

Biden has traveled extensively overseas and across the country and has helped coordinate both national security policy and congressional strategy, all while dealing with governors and mayors on the economy. Politically, he is expected to be an asset in the midterms, as he was in 2008, with white working-class voters who appreciate his homely truths and affable manner, and who still haven't warmed to Obama.

As for Emanuel, Obama was intent on selecting a tough, competitive, savvy chief of staff, one who would be able to use the levers of power to advance an agenda through both legislation and executive action. Emanuel unexpectedly found himself in the spotlight last week when he appeared on Charlie Rose and repeated his oft-expressed interest in one day serving as mayor of Chicago. The press flew into a frenzy, and some pundits deemed the remark an unseemly display of ambition. It was, in fact, a reminder of Emanuel's deep ties to his hometown, his reluctance to leave his job as a member of Congress to join the Administration — part of the House leadership, Emanuel was on a direct path to be the Speaker within a decade — and his willingness to bow to Obama's wishes and jettison his long-term plans in order to manage the White House. (See "Obama's One-Year Anniversary: A Mixed Scorecard.")

Emanuel's hand (and his six years of experience in the Clinton Administration) can be seen in many facets of the Administration's operational success. The White House controls the Washington and media agenda on most days, carefully coordinating with Capitol Hill and interest-group partners. Bad news is not allowed to fester. And the greatest asset, the President himself, is deployed with strategic planning and tactical nimbleness.

It's easy to forget what circumstances could be like, what problems Obama might have encountered. Think back just a few years ago, to the last time a young Democrat was swept into the White House on a message of change. Unlike Bill Clinton, especially early in his presidency, Obama has largely maintained control of his public image, preserved the majesty of the office (a job that has become harder than ever because of the toxic freak-show nature of our politico-media culture) and maintained good relations, in public and private, with the armed services brass, the intelligence community and law enforcement.

The passage of the health care bill and the pledge to help Democrats wherever possible with fundraising and political assistance has (for now at least) quieted the Capitol Hill voices that until recently were questioning the White House's competence and commitment. Control of Congress makes things easier, for sure, but so does an absence of indicted, disgraced or bungling appointees. (See what to watch at Obama's health care summit.)

Over the past 16 months, both Biden and Emanuel have expressed concern internally that Obama has been too bold, risking his presidency on big bets. But those disagreements with the President have been fleeting and mostly futile — and, as it happens, unwarranted. So far, most of Obama's big bets have paid off.

The health care bill's passage is, of course, the White House's signal achievement, and was accomplished without revealing the Administration's cognizance (thanks to internal polling and focus groups) of the legislation's stark unpopularity among the public. But beyond health care, Obama acted decisively to stop the world from going into economic depression, after inheriting a mess from his predecessor. Quibble all you wish about the dimensions of the stimulus law or the administration of TARP or the Detroit bailout, but the actions taken were professionally handled, apparently necessary and, so far, constructive. Strikingly underrated by the Washington press corps are Obama's gains on education policy, including a willingness to confront the education establishment on standards for both teachers and students. Overseas, Obama has snagged an arms-reduction deal with Russia, managed the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq exactly as promised, eliminated numerous terrorist leaders through an aggressive targeting operation and laid the groundwork for dealing with Iran and, perhaps, North Korea. (See the five immediate benefits of health reform.)

In the months ahead, the President will likely pass a financial-regulation overhaul (despite this past weekend's snags), manage the confirmation of a second Supreme Court nominee with relatively little commotion, announce the reduction of the U.S. troop level in Iraq to about 50,000, showcase the undercovered gains on education reform, take advantage of the improving economy to tout his stimulus efforts and sharpen his "Obama-Biden future vs. Bush-Cheney past" argument to help stave off massive Democratic losses in November. He also has a decent chance to pass a small-to-medium-size energy bill. True, some promises, like comprehensive immigration reform, will remain on the sidelines, but most of his major goals will be completed or well under way.

Assuming the President will need a game-changing move in the wake of any significant midterm losses, Emanuel has already played a clever bit of inside-baseball, installing his old friend and Clinton Administration ally Bruce Reed as staff director of the bipartisan deficit-reduction commission that is due to make recommendations in December. If there are big Republican electoral gains, expect the analysis from conservatives and the media to be that the country wanted a check on big spending from Washington. That overriding concern could shape the outcome of the elections more than any of Obama's accomplishments or appreciation for the job he has done thus far. The commission's proposals could then be coordinated with an "I get it" message from Obama, providing a bold opening to the second half of his term, as he sets about tackling another campaign promise: long-term deficit reduction. A difficult pledge to achieve, perhaps, but given the President's track record, it is one that shouldn't be dismissed out of hand.


Read more: http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1984460,00.html#ixzz18LFVmN9M
 
The healthcare bill wasn't an "accomplishment", it was strong-armed through the congress with a very unsavory approach that involved the blantent bribery of false-acting prima-donnas.

Boy, you're improving. This thread it took you three whole posts to completely torpedo any credibility you might have had.
 
You say he is not a socialist. He spent his youth learning from a Marxist. That is where he got his core beliefs. Half of his political appointments have been shown on video, stating that they are socialists or communists. That's all I should have to say about the man. If Americans could think for themselves and actually used their intelligence. What little they have left after years of watching mindless reality shows, the socialist would never have been elected.

I also want to talk about his decisiveness. The seals trained for months and were ready to go get the most wanted man in the world, that a 150 countries were looking for and it took him almost a day to fucking make the decision.

He's gone around the world talking appeasment when he should be taking advise from history.

"Speak softly and carry a big stick, you will go far."
"Your either with us or against us."

Instead he apologizes for Americans trying to be the best they can be. Although we no longer do that do we. Just look at how everyone somehow wins in a youth sporting event. Not everyone can win, and in this world I would much rather see America win then some fucked up middle eastern country. I feel sorry for their people, but choose America first.

I forgot to mention that worthless bitch of a wife of his when she stated right after the election, that it was the first time she has ever been proud of her country.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top