What will you remember the most about the Obama presidency?

[Sektor]

"Obama did X" when he didn't isn't an opinion, it's just straight up wrong

It's unfortunate you see it that way, but once again, 'Obama was a bad president' is subjective, the same can be said for 'Reagan was a good president'. I fail to see how my viewing him as a bad president is debatable. Regardless of whether or not you agree or disagree, it will always boil down to what one perceives as a negative.

I feel as if attempting to justify myself to you is becoming a choir, and one I don't very much appreciate. You can believe what you wish, but don't make the mistake that I will allow my opinion to be skewed. You consistently knock on my views and opinions and seem to make me out to be the bad guy, when it couldn't be further from the truth. I view Obama's presidency as much a failure, and I view your further attempts to antagonize me as increasingly hostile.

I've said what I believe, I won't change my opinion and you harassing and hounding me to do so is in poor taste and hijacks the original discussion which summarily spiraled into you hammering and badgering about my opinion. I'm not the only person to say that 'Obama was not a good president' and I don't appreciate the hostility. It's rude, uncouth and not only unfair to you and I, but unfair to the rest of the community as it assumes that they cannot form their own opinions themselves.

You can dislike my opinions, as is your right and prerogative but you cannot take my opinion away and skew it to fit into some slot for convenience. It's more than a bit childish and it's becoming stale.

 

[gimmepie]

It's unfortunate you see it that way, but once again, 'Obama was a bad president' is subjective, the same can be said for 'Reagan was a good president'. I fail to see how my viewing him as a bad president is debatable. Regardless of whether or not you agree or disagree, it will always boil down to what one perceives as a negative.

I feel as if attempting to justify myself to you is becoming a choir, and one I don't very much appreciate. You can believe what you wish, but don't make the mistake that I will allow my opinion to be skewed. You consistently knock on my views and opinions and seem to make me out to be the bad guy, when it couldn't be further from the truth. I view Obama's presidency as much a failure, and I view your further attempts to antagonize me as increasingly hostile.

I've said what I believe, I won't change my opinion and you harassing and hounding me to do so is in poor taste and hijacks the original discussion which summarily spiraled into you hammering and badgering about my opinion. I'm not the only person to say that 'Obama was not a good president' and I don't appreciate the hostility. It's rude, uncouth and not only unfair to you and I, but unfair to the rest of the community as it assumes that they cannot form their own opinions themselves.

You can dislike my opinions, as is your right and prerogative but you cannot take my opinion away and skew it to fit into some slot for convenience. It's more than a bit childish and it's becoming stale.

He's not saying liking/disliking a president shouldn't be subjective. It very obviously is and always will be. He's saying you shouldn't base your subjective view on misinformation.

 

[Sektor]

He's not saying liking/disliking a president shouldn't be subjective. It very obviously is and always will be. He's saying you shouldn't base your subjective view on misinformation.

I don't believe I was doing so, and therein lies the issue.

 

[gimmepie]

I don't believe I was doing so, and therein lies the issue.

He quite literally lessened the budget deficit. It really doesn't matter what you believe because you were factually wrong. You don't have to like Obama but doing so because of anything to do with the budget is quite literally exactly what believing something based on misinformation is.

 

[Sektor]

He quite literally lessened the budget deficit. It really doesn't matter what you believe because you were factually wrong. You don't have to like Obama but doing so because of anything to do with the budget is quite literally exactly what believing something based on misinformation is.

Tch. I never said anything about a deficit *shrug*

You can believe what you wish to believe, but stepping in puddles for someone else isn't my idea of fun. Misquoting me isn't the way to go about things, and technically, since I said nothing of a deficit I'm not incorrect. I believe I've been sorely misrepresented.

Regardless of whether or not he decreased the deficit was not an issue I originally raised, but now bringing it up, I would appreciate an explanation as to why an additional bill of $7T is acceptable even though the deficit saw a 'huge decrease'. Why is it acceptable to increase the nation's debt nearly two-fold; more than all the previous presidencies combined?

So, when I said he increased the national debt, this is not a false statement. I'm now at a loss, all things considered, how my argument was twisted from 'he [Obama's administration] increased the national debt' to 'he increased the deficit' the latter of which I did not say. I did say he increased the national debt, not the deficit. I'm not going to play the game if I'm cheated, does this sound reasonable?

For starters, here's Aliencommander1245:

Regardless Obama has done nothing but lower the massive debt he inherited.

And my response:

Obama didn't decrease the national debt at all, in fact he increased it.

Aliencommander1245's rebuttal:

Sorry, he cut the defect by a huge amount, not debt.

They're related concepts, but the debt was always set to increase, and given that's.. how it works, really, and that Obama took the US through the GFC and out the other side.

Decreasing deficit is really good though, considering it's a better metric than raw debt.

Regardless of what Aliencommander1245 stated about deficits, I am still correct in regards to the overall debt left behind. So pardon me if grow more than a little irate when you call me 'factually wrong' when it's the opposite. It paints a poor picture to my character to be misquoted.

So, if your direct opposition to me is based off of saying 'he increased the deficit' which I did not say, then I believe I have straightened everything out and this can all be equated to a misunderstanding, and not hasty reading.

 

[gimmepie]

Tch. I never said anything about a deficit *shrug*

You can believe what you wish to believe, but stepping in puddles for someone else isn't my idea of fun. Misquoting me isn't the way to go about things, and technically, since I said nothing of a deficit I'm not incorrect. I believe I've been sorely misrepresented.

Regardless of whether or not he decreased the deficit was not an issue I originally raised, but now bringing it up, I would appreciate an explanation as to why an additional bill of $7T is acceptable even though the deficit saw a 'huge decrease'. Why is it acceptable to increase the nation's debt nearly two-fold; more than all the previous presidencies combined?

So, when I said he increased the national debt, this is not a false statement. I'm now at a loss, all things considered, how my argument was twisted from 'he [Obama's administration] increased the national debt' to 'he increased the deficit' the latter of which I did not say. I did say he increased the national debt, not the deficit. I'm not going to play the game if I'm cheated, does this sound reasonable?

For starters, here's Aliencommander1245:


And my response:


Aliencommander1245's rebuttal:


Regardless of what Aliencommander1245 stated about deficits, I am still correct in regards to the overall debt left behind. So pardon me if grow more than a little irate when you call me 'factually wrong' when it's the opposite. It paints a poor picture to my character to be misquoted.

So, if your direct opposition to me is based off of saying 'he increased the deficit' which I did not say, then I believe I have straightened everything out and this can all be equated to a misunderstanding, and not hasty reading.

Eh fair enough.
I would argue though that the deficit is probably more important in the long term than a national debt that was already basically guaranteed to rise for the next several years when Obama came in but to each their own.

 

[Sektor]

Eh fair enough.
I would argue though that the deficit is probably more important in the long term than a national debt that was already basically guaranteed to rise for the next several years when Obama came in but to each their own.

Thank you for understanding the misunderstanding ohohoho! Glad we can all be friends again and sweep this ugly thing under the rug.

 

[Aliencommander1245]

Regardless of whether or not he decreased the deficit was not an issue I originally raised, but now bringing it up, I would appreciate an explanation as to why an additional bill of $7T is acceptable even though the deficit saw a 'huge decrease'. Why is it acceptable to increase the nation's debt nearly two-fold; more than all the previous presidencies combined?

Because you're using the largest possible metric for measuring gross debt, the Obama administration leading the country through a Global Financial Crisis and the changing nature of debt on a national scale in the modern era. Not to mention debt being a very nebulous term all together, considering all the different faucets it encompasses.

https://www.snopes.com/politics/politicians/nationaldebt.asp

So, when I said he increased the national debt, this is not a false statement. I'm now at a loss, all things considered, how my argument was twisted from 'he [Obama's administration] increased the national debt' to 'he increased the deficit' the latter of which I did not say. I did say he increased the national debt, not the deficit. I'm not going to play the game if I'm cheated, does this sound reasonable?

He has lowered the massive debt he inherited, if you think that literally lowering it, as in making it go DOWN is at all possible or plausible in any possible way for Obama to have achieved you're not super informed on the way the economy works. By decreasing the deficit he decreased the amount he would've increased it, under normal circumstances, this lowered the debt because it could've been higher weren't it for his administration's actions and is functionally the same as lowering the net debt

Say I have a bucket, and that bucket is collecting water from a trickle coming from a stream. While the bucket would increase in water level by 1M if i left it there without doing anything, instead i partially block the stream and only 0.5M fills the bucket.

This is a net loss of possible water, due to my knowing actions. It's the same, but with money.

Regardless of what Aliencommander1245 stated about deficits, I am still correct in regards to the overall debt left behind. So pardon me if grow more than a little irate when you call me 'factually wrong' when it's the opposite. It paints a poor picture to my character to be misquoted.


So, if your direct opposition to me is based off of saying 'he increased the deficit' which I did not say, then I believe I have straightened everything out and this can all be equated to a misunderstanding, and not hasty reading.

[/quote]

As debt and deficit are hand in hand and important together to create the Debt-to-GDP ratio which is information that actually matters in regards to debt size, rather than simple gross debt you're still either using falty/misleading information or just unaware of the actual importance of the data you're pouring over

But, you seem to be pretending that the only thing you've ever been talking about is the debt, rather than the other two that were hastily dropped because you couldn't back them up anymore/were wrong

 

[Somewhere_]

Debt-to-GDP ratio has greatly increased over Obama's presidency:

For reference to other times the Debt-to-GDP ratio has greatly increased:
https://i2.wp.com/metrocosm.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/us-national-debt-history.png

So its not entirely Obama's fault. Is not surprising that the national debt would greatly increase during a national crisis, such as the 2008 recession. Republican presidents have not been notable for their ability to decrease national debts either (ex: Reagan).

But at the same time, Obama has not really decreased spending nearly enough. On the other hand, Bill Clinton did a pretty good job dealing with the debt.

There are also a whole bunch of old people retiring and putting a burden on the social security system. But that falls under unfunded liabilities, which is over $100 trillion.

 

[Lipstick Vogue]

When he made some funny jokes and everyone forgot about all the the people he's been bombing.

 

[Kanzler]

Something (hopefully) that hasn't already been said: Obama was the first social media president. Trump is right now hot behind is heels, and I'm hoping that every subsequent president has a social media presence. It's a lot of fun!

 

[Somewhere_]

Something (hopefully) that hasn't already been said: Obama was the first social media president. Trump is right now hot behind is heels, and I'm hoping that every subsequent president has a social media presence. It's a lot of fun!

Thats also how Obama got an edge against McCain: Obama used social media for donations and spreading the message, which gave him significantly more donation money. And the candidate with the most donation money has a significant advantage, if not a downright guarantee of victory. With the exception of Trump of course.

A really late edit, but I can't double post, so yea:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jiMUoVjQ5uI

This video was hilarious. It really displays both Obama and the first lady as funny people, and reminds us that they are normal people like us.