Ex-Presidents

A place to discuss religious, political and any other serious issues. Those who are easily offended are asked to steer clear.

Moderator: The Slider

User avatar
SOLDIERofficer81
Posts: 203
Location: 7th Heaven

Ex-Presidents

Post#1 » Mon Mar 06, 2017 4:42 pm

Obama's greatest failing is purely political. He and the Democrats pulled America too far to the left, setting the stage for his successor.

Bush's presidency is defined by his failures in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Clinton had the good fortune to be president during the information revolution and its resultant economic boom. Domestically, Bill did some good with welfare reform and the like. But, his foreign policies were muddled, laying the foundation for the international disorder of the 21st Century.

I was alive for Carter, Reagan, and Bush 41. But I can't speak from first-hand knowledge about their presidencies.
"Let us never miss a step. May we never lose our friends. This is our home, our haven, our Citadel."
Citadel denizen since October 5, 2000 | SOLDIER's Final Fantasy VII Messageboard

User avatar
DeathScythe
Libertarian Socialist
Posts: 65
Location: Texas

Re: Ex-Presidents

Post#2 » Fri Mar 31, 2017 9:31 am

I was born in 86. I can really only comment on the same 3.

Obama was supposed to be Bernie Sanders. I voted Obama in 08, and thought that was what I was going to get. What I got was not that. He failed to deliver on a lot of promises to the left. I think his legacy is going to be as the catalyst that began the left's version of the Tea Party. And we don't know what's going to happen yet. Will the Democratic Party fall apart, supplanted by a new third party? Will it remain, but taken over by socialists and other radicals? We will have to see, but this will have been a process started by Obama and accelerated by Hillary.

Bush Jr. I absolutely hated him for so many reasons as a teenager. His flaws were numerous, but what stands out to me is the hyper interventionism and the religious fundamentalism. I think he will go down in history as the last president elected by courting the evangelical vote.

Clinton I was largely politically unaware during these years, but even a kid like me knew he was mired in scandal after scandal. As an adult, I know him as the Democrat who set back gay rights for political gain, and implemented NAFTA. There's a lot of nostalgia for him among leftists and its absolute baffling. Rose colored glasses.

User avatar
SOLDIERofficer81
Posts: 203
Location: 7th Heaven

Re: Ex-Presidents

Post#3 » Fri Mar 31, 2017 6:39 pm

DeathScythe wrote:Obama was supposed to be Bernie Sanders. I voted Obama in 08, and thought that was what I was going to get. What I got was not that. He failed to deliver on a lot of promises to the left. I think his legacy is going to be as the catalyst that began the left's version of the Tea Party. And we don't know what's going to happen yet. Will the Democratic Party fall apart, supplanted by a new third party? Will it remain, but taken over by socialists and other radicals? We will have to see, but this will have been a process started by Obama and accelerated by Hillary.
The Democrats are interesting. My take is they always seem to hang together because they are united by The Cause. But the current party doesn't have much leadership. It will be interesting to see if someone steps up or the party factionalizes like the Republicans have been for years.

DeathScythe wrote:Bush Jr. I absolutely hated him for so many reasons as a teenager. His flaws were numerous, but what stands out to me is the hyper interventionism and the religious fundamentalism. I think he will go down in history as the last president elected by courting the evangelical vote.
I hope you're right.

DeathScythe wrote:Clinton I was largely politically unaware during these years, but even a kid like me knew he was mired in scandal after scandal. As an adult, I know him as the Democrat who set back gay rights for political gain, and implemented NAFTA. There's a lot of nostalgia for him among leftists and its absolute baffling. Rose colored glasses.
Clinton is the president who definitely turned me to the Right. As you say, he was mired in scandal after scandal. So I started associating the Democrats with bad government. (I know better now.) I think the Democrats look back to Clinton with nostalgia simply because the 90s were pretty good for a lot of Americans while a Democrat was in the White House, before Bush ruined it all.
"Let us never miss a step. May we never lose our friends. This is our home, our haven, our Citadel."
Citadel denizen since October 5, 2000 | SOLDIER's Final Fantasy VII Messageboard

User avatar
DeathScythe
Libertarian Socialist
Posts: 65
Location: Texas

Re: Ex-Presidents

Post#4 » Tue Apr 25, 2017 9:35 am

"The Democrats are interesting. My take is they always seem to hang together because they are united by The Cause. But the current party doesn't have much leadership. It will be interesting to see if someone steps up or the party factionalizes like the Republicans have been for years."

I'm leaning to fractionalization at this point. Hillary supporters are now lashing out against Bernie again. We would be ripe for a third party if that were a thing that were possible. That was one of my positives for Trump, but now that he's true blue Republican we probably won't be seeing any change to the two party system.

I think the Democrats look back to Clinton with nostalgia simply because the 90s were pretty good for a lot of Americans while a Democrat was in the White House, before Bush ruined it all.

Well, the middle class has been shrinking for decades now. Things like Glass-Steagall being repealed and NAFTA implementation happened under Clinton. I wouldn't place all economic blame at Bush's feet. He definitely exacerbated everything with debt though.

User avatar
Sephiroth9611
Posts: 219
Location: Off-world colonies
Contact:

Re: Ex-Presidents

Post#5 » Wed May 03, 2017 3:10 pm

DeathScythe wrote:I'm leaning to fractionalization at this point. Hillary supporters are now lashing out against Bernie again. We would be ripe for a third party if that were a thing that were possible. That was one of my positives for Trump, but now that he's true blue Republican we probably won't be seeing any change to the two party system.

Are you referring to involvement in Syria? What examples would you offer for Trump falling into line with the Establishment GOP and its Uniparty allies on the Democrat side?
Since October 3rd, 2000 | "Quite a thing to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave."

User avatar
Sephiroth9611
Posts: 219
Location: Off-world colonies
Contact:

Re: Ex-Presidents

Post#6 » Sun Mar 17, 2019 5:46 pm

I was reading this blog post on the recruitment of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez today and a section stood out, reminding me of this thread:

The loss of Hillary Clinton in the 2016 election exacerbated a pre-existing fracture inside the Democrat party. The far-left Bernie Sanders wing became more angry with the establishment Hillary Clinton wing. The reaction was not dissimilar to the same thing that happened in the Republican party in 2008 and 2009 that gave rise to the Tea Party.

Immediately following the 2016 election defeat, and with massive anger amid donors who had contributed billions to the campaign effort, the Clinton-Wing led by David Brock, went into damage control and organized a meeting with the intent on re-branding their efforts. [SEE HERE] Meanwhile the more progressive wing, the group that actually has a larger grassroots following, decided upon a different course. That’s where Cenk Uygur comes in.

In the 2018 race the DNC was forced to ride the progressive dragon. Nancy Pelosi and the Clinton/Brock crowd knew their rise to regain political power would not be possible without the grassroots Bernie leftists. The Cenk Uygur, Saikat Chakrabarti, recruitment was left alone to keep the fracture from becoming toxic. The ideological issue of party leadership -vs- grassroots extremists still exists; we see the dynamic playing out daily.

Yes, into this foray the Saikat Chakrabarti (Bernie-wing) 2017 operation to recruit primary candidates to challenge the Pelosi/Clinton-wing was the dynamic that brought forth Ms. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. Take any recent college graduate who is interested in politics and has a reasonably attractive social profile and you can get an AOC.

According to that post, the Dems have learned the lessons of how in undermining the Tea Party, the GOP establishment got Trump. It will be interesting to see if the Dem efforts to harness AOC and her ilk work out.
Since October 3rd, 2000 | "Quite a thing to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave."

User avatar
DeathScythe
Libertarian Socialist
Posts: 65
Location: Texas

Re: Ex-Presidents

Post#7 » Mon Mar 18, 2019 1:18 am

Interesting shoutout for Cenk, although he did play a part in that movement along with other online radio show hosts and such. They bet on internal party takeover being more viable than a new third party, which considering the hurdles involved is probably correct.

Now we're seeing why that strategy isn't a slam dunk though, because the old party isn't going to roll over. Pelosi is trying to teach the freshmen "to come to heel" (to borrow another old party term). My guess is that this will not work out, at least not for the most radical of progressives like AOC. Fundamentally, they're not going to fall in line on things like the military industrial complex and the private health insurance industry. I think it's still ultimately either party takeover, or we see a splintering.

Biden/Sanders is about to play out over the next year and a half, which will be game-changing one way or another.
Last edited by DeathScythe on Mon Mar 18, 2019 2:17 am, edited 1 time in total.

Return to “Serious Discussion”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron