No, he didn't. That's Republican propaganda bullshit that you have seen corrected and explained a dozen times, apparently without learning a damn thing - including when not to be a mindless parrot. brief recap: For starters, there was no such thing as a unified "the Democratic" Party - the Reps and Dems were not reflections of each other, two sides of one coin. You can say "the Republicans" and make sense, because they were and are a unified and coordinated bloc - the fascist takeover established that, having finished up the consolidation by 1994. The Dems were and are no such thing. Almost nothing that starts "the Democrats" is going to be accurate or explanatory - it's almost as muddled as "both sides". Going on, there was no two year stretch of control - even with the Independents thrown in the actual window was about 13 weeks, and even then the Blue Dogs were forming caucuses with the Reps (the promised obstacle Reps, recall) and calling them "bipartisan". Then one considers the filibuster - the entire innuendo campaign disintegrates; and there is still a long way to go. As the bloggers put it: a working memory is the superpower of the Left. That leaves the puzzle of the characteristic near total amnesia found among almost the entire non-Left - just because the Left remembers stuff everyone else doesn't have to forget it all - but another time - - - - . Most of what the US has done in the Middle East amounts to something like that. The entire lefty blogosphere pointed out that 9/11 was a pretty clear case of chickens coming home to roost. Obama's contribution would be among the smallest of any US President since WWII - much smaller in eight years than HW's in four, for example. Even if the cause of his moderation was the Republican financial disaster he had to deal with from day one - (without any such Partisan dominance, and in the face of straight up blockade by a Republican Congress that formally and explicitly agreed to prevent Obama from doing anything he attempted from the first day he took office - anything, even the passage of Republican bills) - he was nevertheless a moderating influence on US bad behavior in the Middle East. All his choices were bad ones - anything he did would have murdered innocents, and that was before dealing with the Clinton power center. If you compare the Obama administration's behavior in Syria with the Cheney administration's behavior in the entire region and say "both sides" you're delusional. Meanwhile: You almost certainly don't know what Obama was and was not responsible for in Syria or Libya - no one who thinks "the Democrats" controlled the US government for two years under Obama is likely to have a source of accurate info about US foreign policy during Obama's full tenure. Most Dems opposed both of those things. Why would you expect them to do something they opposed? The nonmillionaire Dems are just as bad. They aren't voting portfolios, they're voting re-election tactics. But in their defense: most Dems do not, in fact, claim glorious social programs. Only the "progressive" faction does that, and they got all of what - five minutes? - of speaking time at the last Convention. The Dems who opposed universal health care and a living minimum wage were in the majority - they said what they were going to vote for, and voted just as they said they would. They still do - look at the speeches of the Dems in the recent primaries: my Senator Amy Klobuchar was fairly typical, in that the first words out of her mouth regarding universal health care were "how are you going to pay for it ?" She made no promises of glorious social programs, and neither did most of the others. She talked about jobs and tax cuts. You got the best the Blue Dogs would vote for, in the month or two that the Dems could get past the Senate filibuster. That was Obamacare - explicitly designed to be "bipartisan", borrowed in its essentials from the Republican plan Romney had sold to great praise for blocking "socialism", because that's what the American Republican citizenry said was all they would accept, but without a single Republican backer because of their oath to oppose Obama in everything regardless of prior agreements and compromises. It did manage to get the Blue Dog vote, and there was one three month window when that was enough - without that bit of luck, the US would not have even that. - - - - - Bothsides is bullshit. Bothsides as an excuse for not blocking a fascist takeover of one's government is ridiculous. Not blocking a fascist takeover of the world's most powerful military because you don't like war is deranged.
The US Presidency is far less powerful domestically than it is in foreign affairs. Congress is supposed to handle most of the minority of internal stuff that is Federally run - it's in closer touch with the States, which are the designed power centers of domestic governance in the US. So most Presidents concentrate on foreign affairs - that's the arena in which they can act. Meanwhile, the average US. citizen knows little and cares less about overseas stuff - neither Trump or Biden is running on their foreign policy. Even when apparently addressing something overseas - like a war, if anyone happens to remember the US is still fighting in one - if you listen you will notice that the subject is really its domestic implications. Tax cuts, say.
Odd, I thought Obama was President for 8 years? That's such a dumb thing to say considering the Republicans are millionaires, as well. Considering Republicans are constantly wailing "Socialism" about the Democratic party, one would wonder why if they didn't care about the people? Isn't it the Republican party trying to get rid of programs that help people? Not evil, just selfish hypocrites.
All you're saying there is that you have some respect for your nation's flag and don't like seeing it misused. Has the US flag a history or is it only a current thing for you? For some the history of the confederate flag (adopted during the war) carries a remembrance of slaves states uniting to keep their way of running their economy: www.history.com/news/slavery-profitable-southern-economy
In other words, utterly selfish? Look, if your historical analysis was more reliable, then maybe the "socialist" scraps you drop wouldn't look like things you don't understand. You caucused for Kucinich because you wanted something? And you're disappointed by an historical outcome you do not appear to understand? And once again you just can't help but land in opposition to the Democrats, just like you did because of Hillary Clinton? And when I think about Republicans trying to make excuses, "Oh! Oh! Some black people didn't vote for Hillary!" it's an easy response, No, no, this one's on Republicans. It's like a faith-healing testimonial, that way: No matter how good you think it sounds, it's still bullshit. Meanwhile, nobody pushing that critique can explain what it actually means. Remember the bit with judges and filibusters, and how everyone cried when Democrats threw out the filibuster on judicial nominees, and how much trouble it's caused since? McConnell filibustered his own bill. Boehner pulled his own bills. Republicans seem to utterly lack good faith. Was it Barrasso who, when facing angry voters who demanded to know why he, as a Republican, was participating in designing the ACA, told those voters he needed to do it in order to wreck the bill? To the one, of course supporters of authoritarianism need Democrats to act like Republicans; to the other, something about smoke and mirrors. It's always Democrats' fault: If they don't ruin the place the way conservatives and libertarians demand, then they're being elitist and awful; if they meet in compromise, they're elitists and awful and people complain they can't tell the difference between the two. Democrats with a thin majority didn't wreck the place ten years ago, so the libertarian is angry? Yeah, sounds about right, or, at least, pretty much like any other day. We've known at least since 2010 why Congress utterly fell apart even compared to itself. They've been at it for over a decade, and for your part the only real question is whether you're simply another mark, or really think you're in on something. Hint: It's not exactly a trick question, but either way, you're still just another easy mark. Often, we juxtapose our own "worlds"; you know, like, in my world, compared to in your world. It's hard to say what your world looks like because you have such trouble telling us clearly. But recall a basic juxtaposition: In my bleedingheart world, it is possible for you to have fallen for the rightist grift, taken part in it, and served it well for years, and still, technically, be innocent. Then again, many people would not appreciate that sense of being forgiven for being a helpless victim, and, moreover, in that Republican bootstrapper attitude so common among libertarians of whatever modifiers, you wouldn't really have an excuse. † Note on edit: I was thinking back to Hulse and Nagourney, 2010, and found what seems to be my first posting of the article↗; it's kind funny that I used the line, This is where Sen. Mitch McConnell's leadership has brought the GOP. These years later, the pretense of accident or incompetence doesn't hold up, and what was unspeakable, then, that McConnell was wilfully inflicting harm on Americans because he likes it, is the point his Senate GOP has reiterated time and again beyond any reasonable doubt. Still, compared to that analysis— The Democrats do enough wrong. If left to their own devices, they will find new and inventive ways to hurt themselves. The problem with trying to exaggerate and twist reality in order to score more superficial points on the cosmic scoreboard of politics is that every once in a while, you end up being handed your ass. And when it is the Democrats who do that ass-handing, you look even worse. After all, it's your ass you're aceepting from a professional jackass. Conservatives, in their battle damage assessment, need to consider the number of ways their political affiliations tie them to professional liars. And here we don't just mean CEOs and lawyers, but bombastic clergy and half-wit congregations; the capitalists. These are broad ranges. But in addition to this basic smear implied by social custom, the GOP reinforces that notion by a peculiarly risky device: generally speaking, the people recognize that politicians are dishonest, but some political figures aim to exploit that fact, justifying sensational breaches of honesty—even what conventionally passes for honesty in Beltway circles—with ridiculous comparisons to mundane political rhetoric that people already distrust. This has been going on, explicitly, for years. The Atwater school was a miniature version, a diorama of the Rove school of politics. The GOP and its wagon train circled up and ferociously shot themselves in the feet. Comparatively, everything else on the table should have been sufficient. They went from twenty percent identification and a purely oppositional strategy that left them trying to cozy up to their unwieldy and oft-undesirable Tea Party and conspiracy theorist offspring to once again possessing and manipulating the political spotlight while the Democrats fell all over themselves like another plotless Sennett farce. —the idea that people should still be so naïve these years later is both confusing and disappointing. But it isn't surprising. Even ten years ago, supporters were giving us hints of what was to come; if I recalled Hulse and Nagourney in response↗ to a one-party accusation, well, I suppose there's some irony in that—we actually considered that one the crackpot, and, sure, he was, but compared to the Republican Party? ____________________ Notes: Hulse, Carl and Adam Nagourney. "Senate G.O.P. Leader Finds Weapon in Unity Senate G.O.P. Leader Finds Weapon in Unity". The New York Times. 16 March 2020. NYTimes.com. 7 October 2020. http://nyti.ms/2w4KbOn
