USA

I know it's not Veeky Forums but the only ones who thought the Obama presidency was a disaster are dumbass /pol/tards. Obama was a hell lot better of a leader than George the second was at least

>muh war time presidents

You must not be from North America. You're probably a Kenyan defending your countryman. I've never been to /pol/.

Old people/small town people who spend 3+ hours a day watching Fox News do too, but they're generally wrong about most things. He wasn't too great but compared to Bush II he was a god. Honestly I don't understand why people still defend Bush, Iraq cost us trillions, lots of national prestige, and in the end is turning out to be an Iranian puppet state. What a disaster of a president.

It just seems that the economy does better under the Democrats than with the Republicans. Now, it shouldn't be that way.
>Jimmy Carter
True, Jimmy Carter was not in the same league. But certainly we've had some pretty good economies under Democrats, as well as Republicans. But, we've had some pretty bad disasters under the Republicans.

I feel like Obama is pretty much just going to be considered just a chain in a string of unnoticeable/mediocre presidents in the future. His only real notable achievement is Obamacare, but it looks like that is going to get repealed or replaced eventually. Foreign policy was pretty much the same between bush 2 and Obama.

>george washington
>war time
>inb4 some small scale indian wars or whiskey rebellion

Yeah, I definitely get why they are cited best, but they could have been a lot worse too. That said, they ARE certainly considered the best by a lot of people, historians included.

You've got it all backwards. He wasn't that great but compared to his successor he was perfect.

>old and rural people

Naive profiling.

Obama was a Bernankebabby/Yellenbabby

I have tons of "old" and "small town" people in my family, its true. Other people vote Republican too, but they can generally admit Bush II was a mistake "but probably better than a Democrat."

You want to explain how Obama was worse than a guy who overthrew a regime in opposition to the Anti-American regional hegemon, wasted trillions of dollars on a useless war, whose foreign policy commitee was co-opted by ideological zealots, and oversaw the repeal of legislation contributing to the Great Recession?

You may have every kind of apple in the basket but you haven't seen the whole orchard.

>a guy who overthrew a regime in opposition to the Anti-American regional hegemon
poor Gaddafi
>wasted trillions of dollars on a useless war,
those wars in Afghanistan and Libya were useless as hell

That was a defense of Republicans. I understand partisanship more than I do thinking Bush Jr. was a good president, because he really, really wasn't. The only people who are dumb enough to still support him are because he was charismatic.

Coolidge was the best president of the 20th century.

Back to mises.org

Afghanistan was started by Bush, and Libya was definitely a mistake, but he was lobbied to do that by the French and Clinton. He did step up to the plate and refused to invade Syria after the clusterfuck Libya was.

wikileaks.org/clinton-emails/emailid/6528

foreignpolicyjournal.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/110327-new-intel-State-Dept.pdf

wikileaks.org/clinton-emails/emailid/12900#efmALTAqG

They are the same, its the elite that control USA, dem and rep play the bad cop/good cop
You can see they continue the war the previous party started

Calvin "dude just dont regulate the economy lmao no there won't be a depression" coolidge

>Afghanistan was started by Bush
and continued by Obama
>but he was lobbied to do that by the French and Clinton
which isn't that far off from having his "foreign policy committee co-opted by ideological zealots"

>Libya
>A war started by Obama
The French and Italians were the main backers and did most of the heavy lifting in terms of air strikes there. We just provided logistics - and if you believe Obama overthrew Gaddafi then he did something Reagan failed to do too.
>Afghanistan
Started under a predecessor and is really just an intervention into a civil war that's been raging there since the 70's at least.

Yeah, but at least he stood up to them and told em to fuck off unlike his predecessor.

Obama legacy is one military intervention with no nation building and guiding the US through the Great recession, while Bush's is 2 costly interventions with nation building, and the set up and beginnings of he Great Recession.

Overall, Obama was less of an incompetent leader than Bush

The narratives around Lincoln as this civil rights hero and champion of the negroes is total bullshit right?

>Obama legacy is one military intervention with no nation building
>implying nation building isn't bad when it's executed properly (Germany, Japan)
>implying Obama's shitty middle ground between rebuilding and non-intervention was admirable
Is Libya better off now than it was in 2010?

Lincoln was a racist, but a few things worth noting...

1. Your quote comes from a time when he was trying to reassure the South that he was a moderate who wasn't going to abolish slavery.

2. There was never a plan to deport blacks "back" to Africa. He wanted to encourage voluntary emigration, but stopped when black leaders told him they weren't interested.

3. In his final address, he openly supported giving the vote to "intelligent" blacks and veterans (This is often cited as what drove Booth, who was in attendance, to assassinate him).

It honestly would have solved so many problems if we'd just sent all the blacks to establish a Liberia-like colony in Africa, as Lincoln wanted. Genocide and slavery are both too despicable to consider.

>I don't understand sunken cost
If you think 1 failed intervention is worse than 2 more expensive failed interventions coupled with domestic economic mismanagement you're not being logical or objective

That meme was already addressed in the post directly above yours.

A country's best shines in desperate times. Who's likely to be cited the best PM of Britain?

Obama was a socialist idiot desu, though he was decently charismatic atleast
Jefferson was best president

Ronald Reagan is polarizing and he presided over a very economically shaky part of our countries history, actually. George H.W. Bush was a lame duck and Bill Clinton wasn't much better. Bush Jr. presidency was a disaster due to many circumstances he couldn't control (and some he could).
Reagan's economic policy arguable lead to the economic success of the 90s, but also played a major part in a continuum that caused the financial collapse in Bush's presidency (all 4 president passed some sort of de-regulation which allowed for this to happen, but Reagan's was more far reaching).
The best presidents were not necessarily the most popular however: FDR's post-depression programs were effective and his wartime leadership was apt. Nixon's presidency was one of the most effective but I think he also had his hand in the war on drugs, which was largely a mistake. George Washington was a fairly effective leader and a precedent setter. Theodore Roosevelt was extremely popular, put in place longstanding and important legislature such as anti-trust related work and conservation.

>Obama was a socialist idiot desu
>Obama
>socialist
wut

>FDR
>best

Fuck off

This - the parties ideologically flip so often that, in the long term, there's about as much difference between them as the red and blue teams in TF2 or Halo... Or, if vydia references sound like gramps trying to sound hip, the only real consistent difference between the two parties is the color of their ties.

As of late, with the Republicans taking up the cause of the "working man" and the Democrats being thought of as the party of the "elite", with it being just the opposite merely a decade before, it seems that this full circle cycling of values is becoming more rapid than ever - as it at least used to take a generation or three before a 180 cycle like that happened.

Basically, whichever party may have been "handling" the US in a given period, has nothing to do with the values, goals, and policies involved, as there is zero historical consistency in either party in that department.

He was probably the most powerful President

Obama is the Reagan of the left.

No, JFK is the Reagan of the left.

>idolized by media
>quoted all the time
>charismatic, known for speech quips

Republicans are taking up the cause of the working man... at least, that's what they say. They sure as fuck aren't acting like it, though. Haven't seen them actually improve life for workers for decades.

Replace FDR with Thomas Jefferson and I agree with your post 100%.

this

Jefferson doesn't get cited near as much as FDR does. He's always in 4th or 5th behind Teddy.

Hey I got a question kinda related to this thread. Now, as an American, I dont really got a good perspective of the education in other countrys, but how does the American pre-college education system hold up? I always see the "American education" meme, but what makes it so bad?

I agree with your post, but your picture is shit. Just because the "American Left" and the "American Right" are similar doesn't mean that left-wing politics and right-wing politics are in anyway the same.

True. He should be cited more though. :(

They don't have the same policies though, the fact that the republican right is starting to represent the "Working class" is a joke because many of those right wing politicians are still the same people from 10 years ago, and their policies on an economic level are against the working class.

finally my man Polk getting some attention on Veeky Forums

Jimmy Carter was weak in economics but he excelled in almost everything else, he wasn't like the burning bright crackling flame like reagan was that people wanted.

Jimmy was the silent blue flame that would last forever and you really have to look to see just how worthy the white house was to house that man to be president of the united states.

>Obama makes statement about the red line if chemical weapons are used
>Chemical weapons are used
>Doesn't pull through with his warnings
>Gives it time for Russia to get involved in the middle east and prolong the conflict

Its hard for me to figure out why Obama called it off? Was it legacy reasons or was he trying not to start a possible WW3 or was he trying to fight against the military industrial complex?
His constant droning tells me that he was probably gullible when it came to CIA intel which got many civilians killed which made him seem like a military industry puppet with the amount of droning he was authorizing.

JFK would be skinned alive by the modern democrat party if they knew JFK beyond mainstream quotes and his assassination

>"Government is not a solution to our problem; government is the problem."
>triples government debt from $997 billion to $2.85 trillion

What did Reagan mean by this?

he was a Californian republican, so an American centrist in the worst ways you can be a centrist

Probably because he couldn't get UNSC approval for intervention in Syria, which actually is a pretty big thing to differentiate his presidency from the unilateralism "fuck you I do whatever I want" of the Bush era.

The Libya intervention started after a Security Council resolution was passed, but after seeing the NATO intervention, Russia would veto any similar resolution regarding Syria.

>t. born after 2001.

t. learns history from cracked.com

>What did Reagan mean by this?
Well, he was right, wasn't he?

...

> "Government is the problem"
> Breaks government while president by actively sabotaging functioning government institutions
> "See, I told you government was the problem"

Inevitable when you elect people who don't want to govern to govern. Note how Carter was able to keep national debt under control with a weaker economy, and Johnson/Nixon were able to reduce national debt despite fighting Vietnam, and implementing social programs.

Take out the retarded Republicans and the US would be under 50% national debt as % of GDP today.

Obama just had the good sense to realize how unpopular interventionist shit is

Still ran up the debt to an unprecedented level,
continued GWB's police/surveillance state expansions, and weaponized every fed agency he touched against his political opponents. I could go on.

I wouldn't hate the guy so much if he got as much shit for doing these things as GWB did but everyone was all too happy to let it slide.

but hey if it wasn't for gwb and obama i would have become just another party drone with their head up their ass

> Still ran up the debt to an unprecedented level,

What was your alternative?

Not provide financial stimulus? Then you lock up the US credit market, and make it impossible for businesses to borrow money, which makes it impossible to do business. You need businesses to borrow money so they can buy goods and services, and pay their employees.

Not bail out the auto companies? Well that would basically ruin the economy of the entire midwest in the long term. It's not only the employees of the big 3, but also the suppliers, the subcontractors, and the dealers. You put that many people out of work at once, and they stop buying stuff, which puts even more people out of work.

The importance is differentiating what part of Obama's national debt is for economic stimulus, and how did Obama spend money after the depression was over. After 2011, Obama is fairly restrained in spending money, increasing the national debt 6% over 4 years.

GWB dug a hole so deep that we need multiple presidencies to sort out all the shit he pulled us into. We are back to digging holes after 1 president of trying to climb out of it.

Obama's legacy is already souring, at best he'll just be mediocre.
Foreign policy didn't change at all from Bush II, if anything it was worse (toppled Gadaffi, caused the Syrian civil war, precipitated the refugee crisis).
He was weak on Russia, Iran and China, but managed to rack up an even bigger body count through drones than Bush did in his second term.
He has significantly worsened race relations, and presided over skyrocketing crime rates in several cities, all the while expanding surveillance to such an extent, that it makes PATRIOT look like a joke.
Only thing of note I can think of is Obamacare, but even that turned into a disaster.

Cracked.com would hate Polk you retard, they're all a bunch of Tumblr-tier faggots
Polk was the Manifest Destiny "America for the White Man" president

Truth my man
>There are racial considerations too grave to be brushed aside for any sentimental reasons. Biological laws tell us that certain divergent people will not mix or blend. The Nordics propagate themselves successfully. With other races, the outcome shows deterioration on both sides. Quality of mind and body suggests that observance of ethnic law is as great a necessity to a nation as immigration law.

cracked loves polk because he's just beneath the surface of instant recognizability and the facile argument for him being a great president practically writes itself (did everything in one term!). its exactly the kind of psuedointellectual padlum that crack peddles

>Praise Clinton
>Bash Obama
What in the actual fuck. I can see why you'd like Bush and Bush if you're a republican but I cannot see why you'd rate Clinton over Obama when a large part of what Obama had to deal with was the economical timebomb Clinton caused.

Let's keep it real. The decline of race relations under his term had less to do with anything he actually did, and more to do with the trauma (unknowingly) racist Midwest and southern America felt at his election, and the prevalence of cell phone cameras to capture police activity

Every president recently, bar Clinton, has managed to astronomically increase spending. Historically, tax revenues have always increased with tax cuts, but that doesn't mean anything when the defence budget is tripled.

This.

Party ideology changes shift if you go past around 50 years.

The last huge shift happened during the civil rights movement. The southern democrats states switched to republican. The northern republicans switched to democrat states. The republicans before the switch were liberals and the democrats of the south were conservative.

Washington without doubt.

He could have been President for Life or King but he would rather not. Any other man and the USA doesn't exist or is 90's Russia.

FDR sucked

>but the only ones who thought the Obama presidency was a disaster are dumbass /pol/tards
Just found out half the country posts on /pol/ lads

Blaming Republicans or crediting Democrats for that is very dodgy.
Fiscal policy can take decades to take full effect and recessions typically aren't the fault of presidents (such as the Great Recession)

obongo was a darkie who spoke proper. It triggers him.

Well, so would Reagan.

everything is /pol/
earth is /pol/
internet is /pol/
white peepo are /pol/

except for me

>Non-american here. In history. Which party has ''handled'' USA best? Democrats or Republicans?

Political parties aren’t nearly as important in the U.S. as in Europe, as politicians in he U.S. are directly beholden to the people who voted for them and thus can and will go against the “party line” if they feel it is to their personal benefit to do so.

For example, here in Michigan the change in concealed pistol licensing from “may issue” (i.e. virtually nobody got one) to “shall issue” (must be granted unless proven otherwise) was initiated by the Democratic Party county prosecutor in Macomb County, despite his party’s platform being avowedly anti-gun.

His constituency was predominantly working class Whites who opposed gun control and he knew if he didn’t do what the voters wanted, he’d be voted out in the next election, so he told his own party to fuck off and did what he felt was needed and was returned to office several times afterward.

European politicians on the other hand, are strictly controlled by their party and if they don’t do what they’re told by the party hierarchy, they can literally be pulled from office by the party regardless of the will of the people who elected that politician.