Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Just wondering what you think he did wrong cause everyone is so pro him over here.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    He dared to introduce Obamacare, how dare a president implement policies designed to help his people!

    The American public, who clearly are so well versed in Marxist ideology and literature, have rightly branded him a communist...that, despite them have voted him in...twice.

    What's more, he's trying to regulate gun ownership, he wasn't elected to stop raving nut jobs shooting up schools!
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BenC1997)
    He dared to introduce Obamacare, how dare a president implement policies designed to help his people!
    One of the principle aims of Obamacare was to reduce the cost of healthcare. However, it has not done this. Instead, insurance companies are having to raise premiums and other related costs as they are having to take on extra customers. There are other issues as well, such as the expansion of the plan.

    The problem isn't with the idea of universal healthcare, but in the way it was introduced. That is the principle critique the majority of Republicans had with the Act.

    The American public, who clearly are so well versed in Marxist ideology and literature, have rightly branded him a communist...that, despite them have voted him in...twice.

    (Original post by BenC1997)
    What's more, he's trying to regulate gun ownership, he wasn't elected to stop raving nut jobs shooting up schools!
    Do you feel the government is in a position to regulate gun control?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aceadria)
    Do you feel the government is in a position to regulate gun control?
    What you said about Obamacare was spot on.

    But in regards to gun control, it is totally the government's responsibility. In the UK, the government has set the gun laws loud and clear, and look at us, we have virtually no gun crime or mass shootings
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    He failed to cut unemployment and restore the economy. He took no action on immigration.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    I'll stick to foreign policy, since I know this area best. I think he did ok having been faced with a range of very difficult situations. He showed an intelligence in considering the likely impact of his actions, some of those around him said when talking ideas he'd always be three steps ahead. He ignored the hawks calling for Ukraine to be showered with weapons after Russia annexed Crimea, pointing out Russia would always be willing to spend more than America, as it was not a core interest. I also believe he had an inherent skepticism of American military power and its ability to solve problems, perhaps not a bad thing despite what Republicans would say.

    However I think he had a serious issue in communicating his thinking, both to his staff, ( he was often accused of being unwilling to use the expertise of those around him) and to the wider country and world ( the red lines over Syria). This communication problem allowed his opponents to show him as being weak and a hater of America. At times he's seemed as if he should be working in a Think Tank or some other wonkish position, rather than as president.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Judas69)
    He failed to cut unemployment and restore the economy. He took no action on immigration.
    He cut unemployment massively!

    He boosted the economy!


    AMERICA WAS FOUNDED BY IMMIGRANTS
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheOpinion)
    But in regards to gun control, it is totally the government's responsibility. In the UK, the government has set the gun laws loud and clear, and look at us, we have virtually no gun crime or mass shootings
    But this assumes that gun legislation leads to lower crime. It's easy to assume this but there is little evidence to suggest linear causality. There are studies that show it exists and others that show that it does not.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aceadria)
    But this assumes that gun legislation leads to lower crime. It's easy to assume this but there is little evidence to suggest linear causality. There are studies that show it exists and others that show that it does not.
    It's a grey area. But surely the simple logic would follow that less guns= less gun crime?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The_Last_Melon)
    Just wondering what you think he did wrong cause everyone is so pro him over here.
    Supported the Arab Spring, no? How did that work out. Black's were ethnically cleansed in Libya. Now that country and others affected are unstable and a source of millions of asylum seekers.

    Took states that attempted to enact stricter enforcement laws on illegal immigration to court. Also, used executive powers to basically refuse to enforce immigration law. Upshot is that US blue collar workers get undermined further and it actually hurts the economy overall. (no wonder Trump has gotten so much traction).

    Appointed a racist to the Supreme Court.

    Didn't really hold anyone accountable for credit crunch - very few prosecutions.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheOpinion)
    It's a grey area. But surely the simple logic would follow that less guns= less gun crime?
    I think the issue is that the only case studies for low guns are countries that have never experienced a widespread proliferation - if the USA tried to reduce the amount of guns now, I think it could cause more crime since the only people giving up their guns voluntarily would be law-abiding citizens
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Architecture-er)
    I think the issue is that the only case studies for low guns are countries that have never experienced a widespread proliferation - if the USA tried to reduce the amount of guns now, I think it could cause more crime since the only people giving up their guns voluntarily would be law-abiding citizens
    Well, maybe taking guns away isn't the best idea, but restricting sales massively would stem it surely!
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheOpinion)
    It's a grey area. But surely the simple logic would follow that less guns= less gun crime?
    You see, that is the issue. Logic may dictate that (and I would think that it does) but the research around the topic is quite fuzzy. With both the NRA and the progressives having significant interests in the matter, I wouldn't even trust the results.¨

    Personally, gun control is necessary. It's a scary thought that one can go into a shop and buy a gun with few restrictions. My issue, however, is with the government having a say in who gets to own a gun. Call me crazy, but I don't trust the government for everything.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The_Last_Melon)
    Just wondering what you think he did wrong cause everyone is so pro him over here.
    Obama FTW!
    Spoiler:
    Show
    Name:  You-Mad-Bro-Meme-Obama-02.jpg
Views: 102
Size:  30.8 KB
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    He's their response the Tony Blair, so much promise...
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    KFC.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheOpinion)
    It's a grey area. But surely the simple logic would follow that less guns= less gun crime?
    No, it wouldn't.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aceadria)
    The problem isn't with the idea of universal healthcare, but in the way it was introduced. That is the principle critique the majority of Republicans had with the Act.
    Have the majority of Republicans really said they don't have a problem with the idea universal healthcare?
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    He's not that clever, at least not enough for his office, although that's probably something that could be said of every president since Nixon.

    So the most that can be said is that he is a repeater for bad ideas, and since he didn't have enough agency to choose those ideas himself, can't blame him too much for that either.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    Closing Guantanamo was a fairly obvious promise that he didn't keep, and winning a Nobel Peace Prize for breaking it was more an embarrassment than anything. Aside from that, he's quite a difficult president to evaluate. He was elected following a global financial crisis that was never going to be fast to recover from. Sure enough, the economy stayed stagnant, which creates an atmosphere where the incumbent isn't popular. The Republicans were given enough power to create a deadlock, and he hasn't been able to implement much of anything. The ACA, which was so much worse than it could have been, was probably the result of this.

    Of note is that even at his least popular he didn't have much trouble getting reelected. But this is more a critique of the mess the GOP is in (a party that is now campaigning heavily against its own presidential frontrunner) than a commentary on Obama.
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Would you like to hibernate through the winter months?
    Useful resources
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.