Obama was the “change” guy that libs thought was gonna make everyone’s lives better. The rest of them are known to be evil pieces of shit, but libs with zero principles need to be reminded of their naivety. Notice how Obama deported the most Mexicans of any president ever and libs dont even give a fuck lmao.
You do remember who preceded Obama, right? At the time, W. was the dumbest president the world had ever seen. In comparison to that, I’d say Obama delivered on the hope and change.
I’m not saying that I can excuse his take on deportation, or the fact that he’s also an establishment democrat, but at this point, who the fuck cares? I’d take another Obama over Trump in a heartbeat. I’d rather have someone in office that I agree with 40% of their takes than 0%.
Obviously he’s neither perfect now, nor was he at the time, but why are people still talking about him at all? Same with Biden. His administration shit the bed and got us in the current situation, but there’s not anything we can do about it now.
We need to be looking forward, and dunking on someone who was (in comparison to US presidents) always ranked in the top 20% of most progressive of ALL presidents, and only behind Carter in the last 50 years… it seems like in order to get more left, we’ve got a lot of ground to cover and Obama would be in the correct direction.
W. was the dumbest president the world had ever seen.
Went to Harvard and Yale. First president with an MBA. SAT score was good. His folksy act was just that. An act. He was told to dumb down his language by Karl Rove and others. There are videos of him speaking before he became a presidential nominee, and the difference is obvious.
Relatively intelligent man pretending to be stupid.
And to his credit, it worked. Got elected twice and to this day people are more likely to blame the Iraq war on evil mastermind Cheney. And unlike plenty of supposedly intelligent leaders, he’s smart enough to keep a low profile now he’s retired.
Relatively intelligent man pretending to be stupid.
You can actually look up footage from when he was Governor of Texas in the 1990s and he was well-spoken and intelligent (despite his saying very little that I agreed with). Did he have an aneurysm prior to the 2000 election? Not very likely, especially when Republicans have been consciously targeting their rhetoric at a fifth-grade reading level for decades.
I don’t understand why we’re so willing to believe that the people who have completely taken over the United States of America with minimal effort have somehow done this while being literally stupid.
I don’t understand why we’re so willing to believe that the people who have completely taken over the United States of America with minimal effort have somehow done this while being literally stupid.
Overused, but might be Dunning Kruger. Less intelligent people, overestimating their own intelligence, and underestimating that of others. If so, it would explain why the same people who are certain Bush is a moron, are often unwilling to change their minds when presented with evidence to the contrary. That and it feels nice to think you’re smarter than other people. Vanity is the Devil’s favourite sin.
Not that I like Bush, just want to make that clear.
Also, Trump likely is stupid, from what I can tell. Although I have heard critics say he has or at one point had a measure of cunning, which certainly may be true given he won the presidency twice.
Not that this changes Trump being a dangerous man.
Trump is literally a reality TV star, which means his public persona is sort of loosely based on who he really is but also heavily improvised and scripted at the same time in order to increase his entertainment value. Based on my familiarity with him from before all of this bullshit (in the '80s), he’s no genius but he’s not especially stupid either. Like a lot of rich people, he doesn’t bother being smart because intelligence is of no real use to him.
He is good at flooding the zone/firehosing/deadcatting. That’s for sure.
Not a great way to run a country, not sure if it’s always deliberate and/or pathological, but good for ratings and helped get him elected twice.
I do think he has declined mentally since the 80s. He’s an old man, doesn’t always look well, and appears increasingly erratic. Not a doctor though, so what do I know. I’ve grown cynical about his supposedly imminent demise, just like I’ve become cynical about his supposedly imminent jail sentence.
Were you alive and old enough to remember GWB’s term? Or are you going entirely on second hand information?
Yes. I was studying political science at the time.
No, I am not going by second hand information. I’m going by how he spoke before Karl Rove told him to dumb it down.
Donald Trump went to Wharton
At least one of Donald Trump’s professors has said he’s an idiot. Not true for Bush, who scored relatively well on his SATs. IRC John Kerry’s transcript scored lower than W Bush’s. IRC Bush’s air force qualifying test was also relatively high.
To be clear, I’m not saying he’s a good president. If anything I’m saying stupidity isn’t an excuse for what happened during his tenure.
Oh look, another plain-speaking “smart” republican that needs interpretation and rationalization to tell us who he really is and what he really means.
Sure man. Canned speeches vs real time. Not even in the same league as Obama. Dude got the job because of the family name and thought it would be an easy ride until reality hit him right in thr nose. Then he got all fundy and stubborn. Know who else graduated from prestigious schools and is president? Yeah, bet you can guess.
Nope. Saw him speaking off the cuff before he was a presidential nominee.
Relatively high SAT score. Score higher on his transcript than John Kerry. IRC scored relatively high on his air force qualifying test too.
He purposely dumbed down his language and it helped him get elected.
As opposed to Donald Trump, where at least one professor has said he’s a moron.
To be clear, I’m not saying Bush was a good president. Quite the opposite. If anything him being relatively intelligent makes him more culpable for what happened.
The fuck excuses? We can do better than this, but you’ve gotta look at everything in context. Until we have a (most likely violent) revolution, the core values of our leadership isn’t going to swing very wildly. Incremental change is all that voting will get you. Obama wasn’t some god that was suddenly going to change what this country is, but he was a step away from Bush and in the right direction. It’s shocking to me how far from normal Trump is and its fucking infuriating that instead of looking forward, part of the left is all “b-b-b-but Obama wasn’t perfect!”
It’s like I agree with your observations but come to different conclusions about what is to be done. I agree Obama, nor any other politician can deliver the change we need given the system we have. To me the lesson isn’t Obama was so much better than Bush or Trump, but that we need to look to ourselves and not for some great leader to save us.
Because he made a lot of dumb kids believe he would be the good one, the was just another bog standard piece of shit, except better at talking.
He made people hope, then murdered that hope¹ with a hellfire missile launched from a drone, to the point we dare not hope on days with a clear blue sky.
¹for anyone who paid literally any attention or had a memory longer than 12 seconds. Also all the people he murdered, but neither of us care about them.
But like Obama was still better by leagues among his peers. Sure Obama killed a few people, you think Bush didn’t? What about Biden? Carter? At least he didn’t sick his ICE troopers on American citizens, we got accessible healthcare, a black president, repealing some war on drug laws. Obama is a saint compared to his peers. Sorry he killed a few people while ensuring a generation could have healthcare. Powerful people do bad things 🥱. Acting like the Pope hasn’t killed people lol
Yes, so I’m an anarchist, and I dont suck their dicks about it
so he killed a few people while ensuring
That the banks got bailed out and people lost their homes. That none of the problems were fundamentally fixed. That occupy was stepped on har. He promised hope, and then murdered it. Along with a bunch of people.
I’m not interested in what an ignorant boot licker with no memory has to say about politics or history.bi doubt you can comprehend either topic.
Cool so acknowledging that a president moved the needle means that I cannot also support a revolution. Thanks for saying X means Y and Z, it really widens people’s perspectives. I upvoted your comment in another thread, we’re all friends here but truly thanks for calling me an ignorant bootlicker
If any liberal has ever done any wrong ever, made any misstep, caused any negative emotion; thats because the speaker personally architected the american fascist movement.
You cannot fail, only be failed. You cannot wrong, only be wronged. It’s a beautiful perfect little solipsistic victim complex that requires a perfectly hitlerian reading of every text, every event.
Never mind who actually architecture the rise of trump, or why.¹
¹for those not old enough: in 2016 Hilary Clinton helped him through his party’s primaries and built a huge chunk of his machine, on the assumption she’d have an easy win, because 2016 was her turn and she’d ‘earned it’.
the point is to drive a wedge between leftists (who see him as just another imperialist figurehead) and liberals (who see him as the most progressive president we’ve had since lbj)
Since your party has spent the last year trying to kill the president by sucking his dick like the offspring of Nancy reagan and a jet engine til he has a heart attack, I presume you’ve decided to back left projects, the projects of your allies, until there’s a viable lib option again.
What are your mutual aid projects? How do you support your local socialist groups? Are you going more militant/insurrectionist and arming the most marginalized in your community? No need to be too overly specific.
Since your party has spent the last year trying to kill the president by sucking his dick like the offspring of Nancy reagan and a jet engine til he has a heart attack, I presume you’ve decided to back left projects, the projects of your allies, until there’s a viable lib option again. What are your mutual aid projects?
How do you support your local socialist groups? Are you going more militant/insurrectionist and arming the most marginalized in your community? No need to be too overly specific.
Please answer. Or so you mean ‘rightful owner’ rather than ‘ally’? Like, when I’m in a place where I don’t feel like being seen out and about doing my own thing and don’t have local anarchist friends, I’ll cook for local tankie meetings or see what I can offer DSA.
You’re making a claim, that we’re close enough a wedge is needed to part us politically. How is that claim true? Tell me.
Unless its not. That’s fine. This is the internet; you can always lie. Thats allowed. We don’t literally crucify you if you’re caught. Honestly we kind of all know you’re lying; nobody here is retarded enough to think a shitlib is actually the ally of anyone but billionaires,
The right can’t attack the left because the left just laughs at them, but the right can attack the left by pretending to be the most left and then call out the left for not being left enough.
Liberalism is not strictly left or right.
It’s anti-authoritarian, and authoritarianism is a type of political inequality maintained by a social hierarchy of political subjugation.
Political scientists and other analysts usually regard the left as including anarchists, communists, socialists, democratic socialists, social democrats, left-libertarians, progressives, and social liberals.
Modern US liberalism consists of progressives & social liberals.
Liberal socialism is a liberal variety of socialism.
Social democracy is a form of socialism within liberal democracy.
All these ideologies are liberal & leftist, and some are even socialist.
The link you provided doesn’t really back what you’re saying. The anti-authoritarian element is only part of a specific branch of French Liberalism according to this source (not a real source btw) so you aren’t even correct about that really.
Any dipshit knows that an ideology that is pro-capitalism can’t be leftist. That’s just basic politics really.
You’re basically admitting to poor reading comprehension & ignorance of references cited in the articles.
Any dipshit knows that an ideology that is pro-capitalism can’t be leftist. That’s just basic politics really.
Not talking about capitalism, talking about liberalism: liberal leftists exist.
Some are socialist.
Political scientists recognize them as leftist.
Deal with it.
As the article you mischaracterize states
Liberalism is a political and moral philosophy
not an economic one.
liberalism is about liberty from unlimited authority
As the name indicates, liberalism concerns liberty: it’s essentially the position that
governments exist for the people
individual human rights & liberties are fundamental
authority is legitimate only when it protects those fundamental rights & liberties
the people have an inherent right to obtain a government with legitimate authority.
In particular, when their government lacks or loses legitimacy, the people have a right & duty to replace or change that government until it obtains legitimacy.
Such a government prohibits unlimited authority, so it’s mutually exclusive with authoritarianism.
The article continues that liberalism is
based on the rights of the individual, liberty, consent of the governed, political equality, right to private property, and equality before the law
which reaffirms earlier points & then some.
It emerged from the Enlightenment when the authoritarianism of its time was the exclusive power & social hierarchy of feudal, absolute monarchy & aristocracy.
Liberalism sought to replace the norms of hereditary privilege, state religion, absolute monarchy, the divine right of kings and traditional conservatism with representative democracy, rule of law, and equality under the law.
Anyone who read history or philosophy & thought seriously would know this.
Because everyone here already knows that other recent US presidents like Bush and Trump were horrible. But many people mistakenly believe Obama was a morally good president simply because they’re the best of a bad bunch. It’s important to understand that even Obama presided over large-scale, avoidable atrocities.
Why do people keep dunking specifically on Obama for this? Isn’t this the same as every US president ever?
Obama was the “change” guy that libs thought was gonna make everyone’s lives better. The rest of them are known to be evil pieces of shit, but libs with zero principles need to be reminded of their naivety. Notice how Obama deported the most Mexicans of any president ever and libs dont even give a fuck lmao.
You do remember who preceded Obama, right? At the time, W. was the dumbest president the world had ever seen. In comparison to that, I’d say Obama delivered on the hope and change.
I’m not saying that I can excuse his take on deportation, or the fact that he’s also an establishment democrat, but at this point, who the fuck cares? I’d take another Obama over Trump in a heartbeat. I’d rather have someone in office that I agree with 40% of their takes than 0%.
Obviously he’s neither perfect now, nor was he at the time, but why are people still talking about him at all? Same with Biden. His administration shit the bed and got us in the current situation, but there’s not anything we can do about it now.
We need to be looking forward, and dunking on someone who was (in comparison to US presidents) always ranked in the top 20% of most progressive of ALL presidents, and only behind Carter in the last 50 years… it seems like in order to get more left, we’ve got a lot of ground to cover and Obama would be in the correct direction.
Quiet, liberal.
Removed by mod
What in gods name are you doing in a community called “leftymemes”??
Removed by mod
I can’t tell if this is a bit. It’s perfect.
Removed by mod
I still can’t tell. You need a full orchestra following you playing ‘hall of the mountain king’ nonstop.
Went to Harvard and Yale. First president with an MBA. SAT score was good. His folksy act was just that. An act. He was told to dumb down his language by Karl Rove and others. There are videos of him speaking before he became a presidential nominee, and the difference is obvious.
Relatively intelligent man pretending to be stupid.
And to his credit, it worked. Got elected twice and to this day people are more likely to blame the Iraq war on evil mastermind Cheney. And unlike plenty of supposedly intelligent leaders, he’s smart enough to keep a low profile now he’s retired.
You can actually look up footage from when he was Governor of Texas in the 1990s and he was well-spoken and intelligent (despite his saying very little that I agreed with). Did he have an aneurysm prior to the 2000 election? Not very likely, especially when Republicans have been consciously targeting their rhetoric at a fifth-grade reading level for decades.
I don’t understand why we’re so willing to believe that the people who have completely taken over the United States of America with minimal effort have somehow done this while being literally stupid.
Overused, but might be Dunning Kruger. Less intelligent people, overestimating their own intelligence, and underestimating that of others. If so, it would explain why the same people who are certain Bush is a moron, are often unwilling to change their minds when presented with evidence to the contrary. That and it feels nice to think you’re smarter than other people. Vanity is the Devil’s favourite sin.
Not that I like Bush, just want to make that clear.
Also, Trump likely is stupid, from what I can tell. Although I have heard critics say he has or at one point had a measure of cunning, which certainly may be true given he won the presidency twice.
Not that this changes Trump being a dangerous man.
Trump is literally a reality TV star, which means his public persona is sort of loosely based on who he really is but also heavily improvised and scripted at the same time in order to increase his entertainment value. Based on my familiarity with him from before all of this bullshit (in the '80s), he’s no genius but he’s not especially stupid either. Like a lot of rich people, he doesn’t bother being smart because intelligence is of no real use to him.
He is good at flooding the zone/firehosing/deadcatting. That’s for sure.
Not a great way to run a country, not sure if it’s always deliberate and/or pathological, but good for ratings and helped get him elected twice.
I do think he has declined mentally since the 80s. He’s an old man, doesn’t always look well, and appears increasingly erratic. Not a doctor though, so what do I know. I’ve grown cynical about his supposedly imminent demise, just like I’ve become cynical about his supposedly imminent jail sentence.
Were you alive and old enough to remember GWB’s term? Or are you going entirely on second hand information?
Because I am, and he was definitely a fucking idiot.
For fuck sake, Donald Trump went to Wharton. It just means they had rich and well connected parents.
Yes. I was studying political science at the time.
No, I am not going by second hand information. I’m going by how he spoke before Karl Rove told him to dumb it down.
At least one of Donald Trump’s professors has said he’s an idiot. Not true for Bush, who scored relatively well on his SATs. IRC John Kerry’s transcript scored lower than W Bush’s. IRC Bush’s air force qualifying test was also relatively high.
To be clear, I’m not saying he’s a good president. If anything I’m saying stupidity isn’t an excuse for what happened during his tenure.
Remember when Dubya was the dumbest one?
Oh look, another plain-speaking “smart” republican that needs interpretation and rationalization to tell us who he really is and what he really means.
Sure man. Canned speeches vs real time. Not even in the same league as Obama. Dude got the job because of the family name and thought it would be an easy ride until reality hit him right in thr nose. Then he got all fundy and stubborn. Know who else graduated from prestigious schools and is president? Yeah, bet you can guess.
Nope. Saw him speaking off the cuff before he was a presidential nominee.
Relatively high SAT score. Score higher on his transcript than John Kerry. IRC scored relatively high on his air force qualifying test too.
He purposely dumbed down his language and it helped him get elected.
As opposed to Donald Trump, where at least one professor has said he’s a moron.
To be clear, I’m not saying Bush was a good president. Quite the opposite. If anything him being relatively intelligent makes him more culpable for what happened.
We are looking forward by making excuses for our past? Lol okay.
The fuck excuses? We can do better than this, but you’ve gotta look at everything in context. Until we have a (most likely violent) revolution, the core values of our leadership isn’t going to swing very wildly. Incremental change is all that voting will get you. Obama wasn’t some god that was suddenly going to change what this country is, but he was a step away from Bush and in the right direction. It’s shocking to me how far from normal Trump is and its fucking infuriating that instead of looking forward, part of the left is all “b-b-b-but Obama wasn’t perfect!”
It’s like I agree with your observations but come to different conclusions about what is to be done. I agree Obama, nor any other politician can deliver the change we need given the system we have. To me the lesson isn’t Obama was so much better than Bush or Trump, but that we need to look to ourselves and not for some great leader to save us.
Removed by mod
Yeah how dare we dislike murder, that’s clearly too much purity testing.
Removed by mod
Because he made a lot of dumb kids believe he would be the good one, the was just another bog standard piece of shit, except better at talking.
He made people hope, then murdered that hope¹ with a hellfire missile launched from a drone, to the point we dare not hope on days with a clear blue sky.
¹for anyone who paid literally any attention or had a memory longer than 12 seconds. Also all the people he murdered, but neither of us care about them.
But like Obama was still better by leagues among his peers. Sure Obama killed a few people, you think Bush didn’t? What about Biden? Carter? At least he didn’t sick his ICE troopers on American citizens, we got accessible healthcare, a black president, repealing some war on drug laws. Obama is a saint compared to his peers. Sorry he killed a few people while ensuring a generation could have healthcare. Powerful people do bad things 🥱. Acting like the Pope hasn’t killed people lol
Where am i acting like that?
Yes, so I’m an anarchist, and I dont suck their dicks about it
That the banks got bailed out and people lost their homes. That none of the problems were fundamentally fixed. That occupy was stepped on har. He promised hope, and then murdered it. Along with a bunch of people.
I’m not interested in what an ignorant boot licker with no memory has to say about politics or history.bi doubt you can comprehend either topic.
Cool so acknowledging that a president moved the needle means that I cannot also support a revolution. Thanks for saying X means Y and Z, it really widens people’s perspectives. I upvoted your comment in another thread, we’re all friends here but truly thanks for calling me an ignorant bootlicker
Sorry maybe I missed the bit?
Don’t know whether this is good ragebait or vile shitlib slop ^^’
Removed by mod
If any liberal has ever done any wrong ever, made any misstep, caused any negative emotion; thats because the speaker personally architected the american fascist movement.
You cannot fail, only be failed. You cannot wrong, only be wronged. It’s a beautiful perfect little solipsistic victim complex that requires a perfectly hitlerian reading of every text, every event.
Never mind who actually architecture the rise of trump, or why.¹
¹for those not old enough: in 2016 Hilary Clinton helped him through his party’s primaries and built a huge chunk of his machine, on the assumption she’d have an easy win, because 2016 was her turn and she’d ‘earned it’.
How did you get that from the comment?
Spicy take from a guy named after a Dilbert character.
Damn I really need to start looking at usernames more… That dude is a chud
the point is to drive a wedge between leftists (who see him as just another imperialist figurehead) and liberals (who see him as the most progressive president we’ve had since lbj)
Ah yes, liberals. Known for being famously aligned with leftism.
…yeah that’s the point.
Your comment makes more sense after you edited it. Otherwise it read as “typical leftist infighting with liberals” sentiment
I presume you’re a shitlib?
What of our programs are you on board with?
Since your party has spent the last year trying to kill the president by sucking his dick like the offspring of Nancy reagan and a jet engine til he has a heart attack, I presume you’ve decided to back left projects, the projects of your allies, until there’s a viable lib option again.
What are your mutual aid projects? How do you support your local socialist groups? Are you going more militant/insurrectionist and arming the most marginalized in your community? No need to be too overly specific.
why?
Thinking libs are allied with the left, presumably because you don’t understand that gaighting is rude. Vut back to my questions; I asked first
what?
My question.
Please answer. Or so you mean ‘rightful owner’ rather than ‘ally’? Like, when I’m in a place where I don’t feel like being seen out and about doing my own thing and don’t have local anarchist friends, I’ll cook for local tankie meetings or see what I can offer DSA.
So how are you an ally? In what way?
lol i thought you were doing a bit about how confrontational and entitled lemmings can be over the most innocuous comments, you’re serious?
You’re making a claim, that we’re close enough a wedge is needed to part us politically. How is that claim true? Tell me.
Unless its not. That’s fine. This is the internet; you can always lie. Thats allowed. We don’t literally crucify you if you’re caught. Honestly we kind of all know you’re lying; nobody here is retarded enough to think a shitlib is actually the ally of anyone but billionaires,
Removed by mod
[citation needed]
What an insane false dichotomy.
it’s not a dichotomy in the first place lol
The right can’t attack the left because the left just laughs at them, but the right can attack the left by pretending to be the most left and then call out the left for not being left enough.
Liberals are the right. Please read a book for once in your life…
Liberalism is not strictly left or right. It’s anti-authoritarian, and authoritarianism is a type of political inequality maintained by a social hierarchy of political subjugation.
Political scientists recognize leftist liberals
Modern US liberalism consists of progressives & social liberals. Liberal socialism is a liberal variety of socialism. Social democracy is a form of socialism within liberal democracy. All these ideologies are liberal & leftist, and some are even socialist.
Maybe you should pick up that book.
The link you provided doesn’t really back what you’re saying. The anti-authoritarian element is only part of a specific branch of French Liberalism according to this source (not a real source btw) so you aren’t even correct about that really.
Any dipshit knows that an ideology that is pro-capitalism can’t be leftist. That’s just basic politics really.
You’re basically admitting to poor reading comprehension & ignorance of references cited in the articles.
Not talking about capitalism, talking about liberalism: liberal leftists exist. Some are socialist. Political scientists recognize them as leftist. Deal with it.
As the article you mischaracterize states
not an economic one.
liberalism is about liberty from unlimited authority
As the name indicates, liberalism concerns liberty: it’s essentially the position that
In particular, when their government lacks or loses legitimacy, the people have a right & duty to replace or change that government until it obtains legitimacy. Such a government prohibits unlimited authority, so it’s mutually exclusive with authoritarianism.
The article continues that liberalism is
which reaffirms earlier points & then some. It emerged from the Enlightenment when the authoritarianism of its time was the exclusive power & social hierarchy of feudal, absolute monarchy & aristocracy.
Anyone who read history or philosophy & thought seriously would know this.
tell me, if liberals are “the left”, then why are they fighting so damn hard against people like mamdani for being leftists?
if you’re gonna be a fucking idiot, do it somewhere else, so the rest of us don’t have to step in your drool.
Propaganda
Because everyone here already knows that other recent US presidents like Bush and Trump were horrible. But many people mistakenly believe Obama was a morally good president simply because they’re the best of a bad bunch. It’s important to understand that even Obama presided over large-scale, avoidable atrocities.
Removed by mod
Sure Jan.