Obama's Legacy Poll

[Patine 469]

Although, another interesting thing to keep in mind. If the US government had dedicatedly, slavishly, and without fail perfectly operated within it's Constitutional limits and powers without ever exceeding them stepping outside of them, especially during major threats of war, and economic, political, and social turmoil, it's quite likely (a VERY realistic possibility) that the US would either not exist as an independent country today, or more radical and extreme factions within, unsatisfied that the government's Constitutional limits utterly paralyzed in a time of extreme crisis, would have overthrown the US government by force and established a completely different type government via "right of revolution."

[servo75 30]

3 minutes ago, Patine said:

Although, another interesting thing to keep in mind. If the US government had dedicatedly, slavishly, and without fail perfectly operated within it's Constitutional limits and powers without ever exceeding them stepping outside of them, especially during major threats of war, and economic, political, and social turmoil, it's quite likely (a VERY realistic possibility) that the US would either not exist as an independent country today, or more radical and extreme factions within, unsatisfied that the government's Constitutional limits utterly paralyzed in a time of extreme crisis, would have overthrown the US government by force and established a completely different type government via "right of revolution."

You may have a point when it came to the Civil War, that perhaps Lincoln's overreach and suspension of Habeus Corpus prevented Maryland from seceding, but even that would not necessarily have caused the Union to loose.  Still, the Constitution is the bedrock of our government, and while we can have opinions of it, and amend it where needed, we can't just ignore it.  I maintain that almost every problem we face can be handled without dismantling our founding documents, and if there are a few that can't, there are procedures in place that can amend the Constitution.  Amendments are not supposed to be easy to pass, because we can't have laws of that magnitude passed unless really important.

[Reagan04 658]

5 minutes ago, servo75 said:

You may have a point when it came to the Civil War, that perhaps Lincoln's overreach and suspension of Habeus Corpus prevented Maryland from seceding, but even that would not necessarily have caused the Union to loose.  Still, the Constitution is the bedrock of our government, and while we can have opinions of it, and amend it where needed, we can't just ignore it.  I maintain that almost every problem we face can be handled without dismantling our founding documents, and if there are a few that can't, there are procedures in place that can amend the Constitution.  Amendments are not supposed to be easy to pass, because we can't have laws of that magnitude passed unless really important.

Lincoln's tyranny over my state bars him from being one of my favorite Presidents. It's a huge deal breaker for me.

[Edouard 121]

Yes if I was American I would have been a democrat since the beginning of my life, but I would have prefer the path of Al Gore than the last.

What I admire in Barack Obama is not that he will stay known as one of the greatest or worst presidents, but he will probably stay known as one of the greatest politicians of ever times.

How would you have the potential to be re elected by 332 great electors in 2012 after 4 years of economic recession and an unemployment at 8%?

How can you control our public mediatisation to get a majority of supporters on the web even today and bigger than those for Trump while you have been president for 8 years?

This president is a master of the communication, and for it he is one of the greatest politicians of ever times, a machine to win like Tony Blair in his time or Helmut Kholl, but he has not made the accomplishments of great american presidents like Ronald Reagan (on which I disagree but I respect the accomplishments) and the huge Roosevelt who simply putted American on his side from his election to his death, securing 20 years of victories and the greatest social protection for a democracy.

[Patine 469]

15 minutes ago, servo75 said:

You may have a point when it came to the Civil War, that perhaps Lincoln's overreach and suspension of Habeus Corpus prevented Maryland from seceding, but even that would not necessarily have caused the Union to loose.  Still, the Constitution is the bedrock of our government, and while we can have opinions of it, and amend it where needed, we can't just ignore it.  I maintain that almost every problem we face can be handled without dismantling our founding documents, and if there are a few that can't, there are procedures in place that can amend the Constitution.  Amendments are not supposed to be easy to pass, because we can't have laws of that magnitude passed unless really important.

However, you haven't considered also, that the general inaction and complete lack of meaningful (and, ultimately, necessary) economic and government action that you and other Constitutional purists have proposed the US government should have taken during the unprecedented economic nightmare of the Great Depression of the calibre the US likely could have NEVER forseen, policies, I might, that Hoover became the worst performing incumbent US President running for re-election in US history for trying to stick, likely would have to the dissatisfied, broke, unemployed (or threatened with unemployment) majority of the country's population, whose livelihoods and long-term savings had been destroyed, to, frustrated with a government that wouldn't life a finger to help the majority of people, but to serve and be empowered by the majority of the population, may take credence from Lenin and Stalin's promises abroad, which most Americans didn't back then fully know the horrors of what was actually going in the USSR at that time, and overthrow the US government in favour of a Bolshevik regime that, at least in the '30's, they might be convinced may do better than a government who believed that puritanical and slavish adherence to a document from the 18th was far more important than the livelihoods and well-being of most of it's population. Constitutional purity and rhetoric do not fill bellies, give jobs, or allow someone a new home, after all.

[servo75 30]

1 hour ago, Reagan04 said:

Lincoln's tyranny over my state bars him from being one of my favorite Presidents. It's a huge deal breaker for me.

Exactly!  I don't know what your state is, but he's probably one of the most overrated (next to Obama and FDR) Presidents of all time.  People say "oh but he freed the slaves."  That is oversimplified at best.

[Reagan04 658]

11 minutes ago, servo75 said:

Exactly!  I don't know what your state is, but he's probably one of the most overrated (next to Obama and FDR) Presidents of all time.  People say "oh but he freed the slaves."  That is oversimplified at best.

It's MD by the way. His suspension of habeas corpus locks him from the halls of the greats. My ancestral home is VA and I am very proud of my deep American/Virginian roots!

[servo75 30]

2 hours ago, Reagan04 said:

It's MD by the way. His suspension of habeas corpus locks him from the halls of the greats. My ancestral home is VA and I am very proud of my deep American/Virginian roots!

Maryland, so yeah that was pretty much ground zero.

[Conservative Elector 2 333]

10 hours ago, vcczar said:

I'm not saying they aren't well thought out because I disagree with you. I am saying they are not well thought out because they are not well thought out. Plenty of conservatives on this forum disagree with me all the time, and I value the concision, completeness, and contemplative nature of their arguments. This would include @VanMav, @jvikings1, @Conservative Elector 2 among others. 

Thank you! I value the inputs from you and other sane liberals here also very much though we disagree most of the time.

[jvikings1 40]

20 hours ago, Patine said:

But tell me, what policies has Obama specifically advocated or legislated that are actually Communist in nature, and not New Left, which is an entirely diiferent political ideology and stance altogether, to the point of being unrecognizable and almost entirely unrelated?

If you read my post, I said, "I am not saying that Obama is a Communist."

[jvikings1 40]

13 hours ago, Patine said:

However, you haven't considered also, that the general inaction and complete lack of meaningful (and, ultimately, necessary) economic and government action that you and other Constitutional purists have proposed the US government should have taken during the unprecedented economic nightmare of the Great Depression of the calibre the US likely could have NEVER forseen, policies, I might, that Hoover became the worst performing incumbent US President running for re-election in US history for trying to stick, likely would have to the dissatisfied, broke, unemployed (or threatened with unemployment) majority of the country's population, whose livelihoods and long-term savings had been destroyed, to, frustrated with a government that wouldn't life a finger to help the majority of people, but to serve and be empowered by the majority of the population, may take credence from Lenin and Stalin's promises abroad, which most Americans didn't back then fully know the horrors of what was actually going in the USSR at that time, and overthrow the US government in favour of a Bolshevik regime that, at least in the '30's, they might be convinced may do better than a government who believed that puritanical and slavish adherence to a document from the 18th was far more important than the livelihoods and well-being of most of it's population. Constitutional purity and rhetoric do not fill bellies, give jobs, or allow someone a new home, after all.

You cannot just ignore the Constitution when things are bad.  This just leads to tyranny.

[Patine 469]

54 minutes ago, jvikings1 said:

You cannot just ignore the Constitution when things are bad.  This just leads to tyranny.

But, if you read what I said, tyranny could end up replacing the Constitution in a worse and more overt way if a US Government strictly following just can't, or won't deal with a crisis of that magnitude (similar phenomena happened causing the demise of the Weimar Republic and, although it wasn't really constitutional, it's failings and being paralyzed nonetheless fit in here, the regime of Tsar Nicholas II during the latter days of WW1).

[jvikings1 40]

1 hour ago, Patine said:

But, if you read what I said, tyranny could end up replacing the Constitution in a worse and more overt way if a US Government strictly following just can't, or won't deal with a crisis of that magnitude (similar phenomena happened causing the demise of the Weimar Republic and, although it wasn't really constitutional, it's failings and being paralyzed nonetheless fit in here, the regime of Tsar Nicholas II during the latter days of WW1).

Except for the fact that the regime of Tsar Nicholas II wasn't democratic and was full of the abuse of power.  This is comparing apples and oranges.  Also, the Weimar Republic wasn't established into everyday life like the US government was.  The people of the US had gone through a civil war and the country didn't separate.  If a government ignores the document that founded it, then what authority does that government have?  What is the point of a constitution that can just be ignored?

[Patine 469]

8 minutes ago, jvikings1 said:

Except for the fact that the regime of Tsar Nicholas II wasn't democratic and was full of the abuse of power.  This is comparing apples and oranges.  Also, the Weimar Republic wasn't established into everyday life like the US government was.  The people of the US had gone through a civil war and the country didn't separate.  If a government ignores the document that founded it, then what authority does that government have?  What is the point of a constitution that can just be ignored?

What I'm saying, if a full-scale leftist revolution had occurred because the US government hadn't been able to deal with the Great Depression (which it's strict Constitutional powers as you and Servo75 say they are, wouldn't have allowed them) and established by revolution a radical government with a new, probably Bolshevik-leaning Constitution entirely, then the US Constitution wouldn't be worth much, because it wouldn't even legally be in force at all anymore.

[jvikings1 40]

25 minutes ago, Patine said:

What I'm saying, if a full-scale leftist revolution had occurred because the US government hadn't been able to deal with the Great Depression (which it's strict Constitutional powers as you and Servo75 say they are, wouldn't have allowed them) and established by revolution a radical government with a new, probably Bolshevik-leaning Constitution entirely, then the US Constitution wouldn't be worth much, because it wouldn't even legally be in force at all anymore.

I haven't said anything about them. I just questioned the thought of violating the Constitution when times are bad.  I have not studied the tools used enough to make a determination on them.

I highly doubt that was a possibility though.  The legislation did some to help, but it was WW2 that got us out of the Great Depression.  Without the war, it would have continued on.

[Patine 469]

58 minutes ago, jvikings1 said:

I haven't said anything about them. I just questioned the thought of violating the Constitution when times are bad.  I have not studied the tools used enough to make a determination on them.

I highly doubt that was a possibility though.  The legislation did some to help, but it was WW2 that got us out of the Great Depression.  Without the war, it would have continued on.

Forgive me there. I'm not quite clear just how strict your interpretation of the US Constitution is, and it's potential flexible in evolving circumstances, compared to Servo75, who seems to believe in an almost completely inactive executive except to enforce Constitutional, a Congress who would have been paralyzed at several points in US history if they clung to their Constitutional mandate, and who has completely and utterly failed to accept or acknowledge the existence of the "necessary and proper" clause in any way or usage. The comparison was perhaps unfair. Can you elaborate on how you believe then-unprecedented events like the Great Depression should have been dealt with, assuming the US Government didn't know (as they didn't, historically) in 1932, that entry into a big war 9 years later is what would save their economy in the end?

[Patine 469]

I seem to have allowed myself, once again, despite declaring I would stop, to get carried away in heated political and ideological debate. Now that I've caught myself, I am returning (or at least making an attempt, I'm only human) to reinstate my pledge to only post on scenario creation and more-or-less objective observation of electoral history and events.

[Jayavarman 129]

Obama's popularity hits near-record high on eve of election

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/11/obama-highest-popularity-in-2-years-230897