Christoph Posted 9 July 2016 Posted 9 July 2016 We need a Obama type figure to bring everyone together. Although he was found to be a shit president, he brought it of hope when he just became the leader Can I ask why he is considered a shit president? I see it tossed around by people but I was never really sure why. Always came across as a fairly level headed steady president compared to the previous ones? Of course I have no idea what policies he has bought in the USA which might affect peoples lives.
Dr The Singh Posted 9 July 2016 Posted 9 July 2016 Can I ask why he is considered a shit president? I see it tossed around by people but I was never really sure why. Always came across as a fairly level headed steady president compared to the previous ones? Of course I have no idea what policies he has bought in the USA which might affect peoples lives.One for the American posters on here. Every yank I speak to says he has made America worse in all aspects!!
Guest MattP Posted 9 July 2016 Posted 9 July 2016 Can I ask why he is considered a shit president? I see it tossed around by people but I was never really sure why. Always came across as a fairly level headed steady president compared to the previous ones? Of course I have no idea what policies he has bought in the USA which might affect peoples lives. Do nothing President would be more accurate, his hands have been tied on some things, but he's barely implemented anything he said he would, although in mitigation he did have to contend with the aftermatch of a terrible war and the financial disaster, his legacy may well be the disastrous race relations he leaves the country with though. A good article from this morning's Times which I've copied in. http://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/comment/obama-has-done-nothing-for-race-relations-hw6f00mzp At the 2008 Democratic Convention, where Barack Obama was nominated to run for president, I spied Michelle and their daughters being driven home one sweaty evening. It was the sweetest sight. They were in one of those huge presidential 4X4s with secret service men hanging out of the open doors. As they passed by, I caught their faces peering out from the depths of the car, cocooned in a nest built by grey-suited heavily armed white people. Surely change had come. It was, of course, a misleading picture. A giddy self-deluding daydream. It was too easy. Too simple. As he always knew. The truth is that America did not elect, so has never elected, a black man to the White House. Physically this is true: Obama is of mixed race with a white mother. But psychologically, intellectually, politically, it is even truer. And Barack Obama never sought to hide that fact. This was not a black administration with black concerns at its heart; indeed in his first term he had one of the smallest number of black cabinet members in recent times — fewer than George W Bush. No, Obama never intended to be black. Remember the controversy over the Rev Jeremiah Wright? He had been a pastor and friend to the Obamas but during the 2008 election a video surfaced of the pastor revealing himself to be the angriest of angry black men, calling for reparations for slavery, blaming the US for 9/11, screaming the words, “God Damn America”. Obama reacted with a speech that many still believe was his finest. Entitled “A More Perfect Union”, it ranged across the whole American experience and included poignant details of his own life — including the fact that his white grandmother had confessed to him that she was frightened of black men. Obama refused to condemn Wright just as he refused to condemn his granny: “These people are a part of me. And they are a part of America, this country that I love.” Yes, he has flashes of supreme annoyance. He will be desperately upset today, after five Dallas police officers were killed by snipers during a march protesting about the shooting of two black men by police. But Obama does not do burning anger. Still less does he do black burning anger. Some thought this was a calculation that he made to get elected. Once in the White House, or once re-elected, he would let rip. But that was never his plan. He simply does not believe that such anger works. And for some African-Americans that is a problem. Wright (who was eventually disowned) still preaches in North Carolina where he refers to his former friend as “our Halfrican-American president”. And it is difficult to avoid a sense that Wright’s madcap anger rings more bells with black Americans than it did back in 2008 — in other words that Obama’s approach has lost ground in the nearly eight years he has been in power. The reasons are not difficult to find. Obama — in that More Perfect Union speech — enjoined black people to “bind their grievances” to those of all Americans hoping for better lives. But the binding never happened. There is something about black life in America that seems to prevent it: something structural and difficult to shift. First: black people are poorer than whites in a profound way. According to the non-partisan Economic Policy Institute nearly 46 per cent of black children under the age of six live in poverty in America, compared with 14.5 per cent of white children. This figure has not changed significantly under Obama. And how could it? Because much of the cause of the poverty of black communities is their ghetto-like separation from the rest of American life. This is the world of what sociologists call “concentrated poverty” where black families, even wealthier families, are far more likely to live in poor districts with bad education, poor health services and no public transport. The sociologist Robert Sampson has suggested that racial differences in neighbourhood exposure to poverty are so strong that high-income blacks suffer more than low-income whites. For example, non-poor blacks in Chicago live in neighbourhoods that are nearly 30 per cent in poverty — traditionally the definition of “concentrated poverty” areas — whereas poor whites lives in neighbourhoods with 15 per cent poverty, about the national average. This is a deep hole to climb out of. And just when you try, you get sent to jail. According to Pew Research one in 87 working-aged white men is in state prison or local jail, compared with one in 36 Hispanic men and one in 12 African-American men. Young black men without high school diplomas are more likely to be in prison (37 per cent) than employed (26 per cent). And what if you get — against all these odds — to Harvard. Well, according to a study last year, using fake names that suggested ethnicity, black graduates of Ivy League universities have the same response rates from potential employers as white graduates of lowly state universities. Michael Gaddis, of the University of Michigan, who conducted the study, called it “very discouraging.” Hope came. Change did not. And relations between black and white Americans are as traumatised today as they have been at any time in recent years. But here is a thought. Barack Obama is not going anywhere. Yes, his time in office is nearly done, but when he leaves next year he will be just 55. What is he going to do? The strong suggestion is that race relations will take up much of his time. He will devote himself to the cause of civil rights in a way that, as president, he could not or would not. Barack Obama, freed from office, will have the time to think again about his approach to race. He might even decide to be black. "Yes we can" - "Sorry we didn't" is how I'd sum up his Presidency.
Dr The Singh Posted 9 July 2016 Posted 9 July 2016 He is the type of president I would be, with abit of Bill Clinton stylee
Dr The Singh Posted 9 July 2016 Posted 9 July 2016 Looks like we dodged a bullet on Stephen Crabb. Why??
Webbo Posted 9 July 2016 Posted 9 July 2016 Why?? Sexting another woman after basing his campaign on christian family values. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/07/09/tory-leadership-candidate-and-family-values-man-stephen-crabb-se/
Dr The Singh Posted 9 July 2016 Posted 9 July 2016 Sexting another woman after basing his campaign on christian family values. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/07/09/tory-leadership-candidate-and-family-values-man-stephen-crabb-se/ Really, was she fit???
leicsmac Posted 9 July 2016 Posted 9 July 2016 Sexting another woman after basing his campaign on christian family values. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/07/09/tory-leadership-candidate-and-family-values-man-stephen-crabb-se/ Isn't something like that practically de rigueur for politicians espousing "Christian family values" to try to win votes? Don't really think it makes him stand out from those similar to him who have come before.
Dr The Singh Posted 9 July 2016 Posted 9 July 2016 Isn't something like that practically de rigueur for politicians espousing "Christian family values" to try to win votes? Don't really think it makes him stand out from those similar to him who have come before.Yeah, like other xtrian values like lying, mass murdering on those lies etc. Looking for poon is weak, compared to lying to the nationI would make a great Politician, my Christian values are superb
reynard Posted 9 July 2016 Posted 9 July 2016 I don't think she is dangerous, I'm quite excited by how she blurs certain boundries. I would vote for her based on she won't give any leeway on the brexit plan and push us down the road we voted for. I'm still unsure as to what May's plan is for this, cheap shots are nothing new and this one is pretty lame by comparison. She may not be dangerous but she sure hasn't come out of this very well. I'd be slightly worried that so far sheappars to lack the intellectual capacity and political nous to be a PM. Also I think if she gets the job, depending on her proposals, there would have to be a general election for her to have the mandate of the people. We are in great danger of just focusing on Brexit. We can't allow the rest of Government policy and business to become stagnated by a PM fixated just on one policy. Whoever gets the job also has to respect the fact that they were elected on a Cnservative manifesto and any significant deviation from those "promises" should require a new election. We have no idea how she would negotiate as she has no experience. Personally from hearing her speak I'm not sure she is up to the job but that is, I admit, just gut instinct. We need a PM to help unite the country which is now deeply divided and she really doesn't seem like someone likely to do this. However cheap this shot was it was a best misguided, worse patronising or even worse frankly disgusting and insulting to those who either can't have children or chose not to. The mere suggestion that someone is more qualified to do the job she wants simply because they have children is just ridiculous and would not even have been an issue if both candidates were men. She appears to have questions to answer on her tax affairs, inaccuracy on her CV, and some of her blog entries are far from diplomatic.
Mike Oxlong Posted 9 July 2016 Posted 9 July 2016 Isn't something like that practically de rigueur for politicians espousing "Christian family values" to try to win votes? Don't really think it makes him stand out from those similar to him who have come before. https://youtu.be/wvLI_S7vN_8
Guest Posted 9 July 2016 Posted 9 July 2016 Sexting another woman after basing his campaign on christian family values. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/07/09/tory-leadership-candidate-and-family-values-man-stephen-crabb-se/ Yet he's still a Tory MP.
Dr The Singh Posted 9 July 2016 Posted 9 July 2016 Yet he's still a Tory MP.Why say Tory??? He should not be an MP...But a president
Thracian Posted 9 July 2016 Posted 9 July 2016 'I don't want this to be "Andrea has children, Theresa hasn't" because that would be really horrible'. She actively made a point of not wanting to compare it with Theresa, just to justify why being a mum is important to her politics, nowhere near as bad as it's been made out. Leadsom was naive but the blatantly biased Times has a great deal to answer for in the way it took arguably innocent comments - perhaps badly phrased due to the pressure she was under - and built them up into something that was categorically written to serve their ends. If there was any calculated intent by Leadsom to take advantage of May's heartbreak in not having had children it showed a glaring lack of class and, worse still, an extremely worrying misjudgement. But even if there was it may just have been a human but sadly mistaken retaliation after the malicious attacks concerning her CV. Overall I don't think anyone's come out of the entire leadership debate involving May and Leadsom so far. May calls for a fair fight but events have already mocked the sincerity of that remark especially when so much damage may already have been engineered. Leadsom needs to realise that politics is ruthless, brutal and there really are people who would do anything in the quest for power - either for themselves or for someone they support. Last night I kind of liked the idea of having another female Prime Minister. Now I'm not so sure. As for The Times - they're beneath contempt.
DANGEROUS TIGER Posted 9 July 2016 Posted 9 July 2016 She may not be dangerous but she sure hasn't come out of this very well. I'd be slightly worried that so far sheappars to lack the intellectual capacity and political nous to be a PM. Also I think if she gets the job, depending on her proposals, there would have to be a general election for her to have the mandate of the people. We are in great danger of just focusing on Brexit. We can't allow the rest of Government policy and business to become stagnated by a PM fixated just on one policy. Whoever gets the job also has to respect the fact that they were elected on a Cnservative manifesto and any significant deviation from those "promises" should require a new election. We have no idea how she would negotiate as she has no experience. Personally from hearing her speak I'm not sure she is up to the job but that is, I admit, just gut instinct. We need a PM to help unite the country which is now deeply divided and she really doesn't seem like someone likely to do this. However cheap this shot was it was a best misguided, worse patronising or even worse frankly disgusting and insulting to those who either can't have children or chose not to. The mere suggestion that someone is more qualified to do the job she wants simply because they have children is just ridiculous and would not even have been an issue if both candidates were men. She appears to have questions to answer on her tax affairs, inaccuracy on her CV, and some of her blog entries are far from diplomatic. You must be so gullible to believe this tripe in the Times. A L. is fuming that such blatant "lies" have been printed, that don't represent what she said. Did you see the writer grovel on TV today, when asked the pertinent questions, about the article? I suspect not. The Times was / is, very pro Europe, and appears to be operating a smear campaign, in order to push more votes through for T.M.
Webbo Posted 9 July 2016 Posted 9 July 2016 Yet he's still a Tory MP. Come the next election his constituents can bear his actions in mind.
Thracian Posted 9 July 2016 Posted 9 July 2016 Isn't something like that practically de rigueur for politicians espousing "Christian family values" to try to win votes? Don't really think it makes him stand out from those similar to him who have come before. I don't think it's a Christian thing. In 67 years the clearest thing I've learned about even faith-following people is that they are utterly hypocritical if it suits them.
DJ Barry Hammond Posted 9 July 2016 Posted 9 July 2016 I don't think it's a Christian thing. In 67 years the clearest thing I've learned about even faith-following people is that they are utterly hypocritical if it suits them. So you are aware Leadsom is exactly that?
reynard Posted 9 July 2016 Posted 9 July 2016 You must be so gullible to believe this tripe in the Times. A L. is fuming that such blatant "lies" have been printed, that don't represent what she said. Did you see the writer grovel on TV today, when asked the pertinent questions, about the article? I suspect not. The Times was / is, very pro Europe, and appears to be operating a smear campaign, in order to push more votes through for T.M. Have you seen the transcript?
reynard Posted 9 July 2016 Posted 9 July 2016 You must be so gullible to believe this tripe in the Times. A L. is fuming that such blatant "lies" have been printed, that don't represent what she said. Did you see the writer grovel on TV today, when asked the pertinent questions, about the article? I suspect not. The Times was / is, very pro Europe, and appears to be operating a smear campaign, in order to push more votes through for T.M. Any politician with any sense would have batted away this type of questioning with an answer along the lines of; Whether a candidate is a parent or not has no bearing on their capability to stand for office. But for some reason she didn't either because she thought she could make political capital or because she isn't clever enough or astute enough to do so. It is quite clear from the transcript that she made the decision to follow on the question by comparing her state as a mother to the childless state of May. If you are disinclined to see that then fair enough.
Thracian Posted 9 July 2016 Posted 9 July 2016 Any politician with any sense would have batted away this type of questioning with an answer along the lines of; Whether a candidate is a parent or not has no bearing on their capability to stand for office. But for some reason she didn't either because she thought she could make political capital or because she isn't clever enough or astute enough to do so. It is quite clear from the transcript that she made the decision to follow on the question by comparing her state as a mother to the childless state of May. If you are disinclined to see that then fair enough. I'm inclined to think that too but it's not conclusive and may, in any case, have been a stupid attempt to get her own back against the machinations against her own challenge. Overall I'm inclined to allow her the benefit of the doubt but, even then, it questions her judgement, instincts and/or resilience resilience and therefore her potential as a Prime Minister. She should realise there are so many knives sharpened against her, even in her political home.
reynard Posted 9 July 2016 Posted 9 July 2016 I'm inclined to think that too but it's not conclusive and may, in any case, have been a stupid attempt to get her own back against the machinations against her own challenge. Overall I'm inclined to allow her the benefit of the doubt but, even then, it questions her judgement, instincts and/or resilience resilience and therefore her potential as a Prime Minister. She should realise there are so many knives sharpened against her, even in her political home. I'm afraid her initial response on twitter did her no favours either. Whereas an apology might have helped diffuse the situation it is quite clear the Times did not misquote her and the release of the transcript in writing is damning and the recorded interview more so as there you appreciate the tone of her language. One must also question the professionalism of those around her in this campaign. It would be common practice for a "camp" in this situation to have had their own recording of the interview and therefore able to refute any quote etc from their own evidence rather than relying on another party. The response across the Tory press is very bad for her chances.
Thracian Posted 9 July 2016 Posted 9 July 2016 I'm afraid her initial response on twitter did her no favours either. Whereas an apology might have helped diffuse the situation it is quite clear the Times did not misquote her and the release of the transcript in writing is damning and the recorded interview more so as there you appreciate the tone of her language. One must also question the professionalism of those around her in this campaign. It would be common practice for a "camp" in this situation to have had their own recording of the interview and therefore able to refute any quote etc from their own evidence rather than relying on another party. The response across the Tory press is very bad for her chances. Suckered or not, I tend to agree and wouldn't be surprised if it's the end of her advance within the party. Makes you wonder how she ever got to university never mind onto the short list for Prime Minister.
fuchsntf Posted 10 July 2016 Posted 10 July 2016 Suckered or not, I tend to agree and wouldn't be surprised if it's the end of her advance within the party. Makes you wonder how she ever got to university never mind onto the short list for Prime Minister. Why..!! One doesnt learn common sense or social etiquette at university.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.