Would you take 8 more years of Obama?

Everyone here knows me as the guy that hates on Obama. I've created more threads than I can count criticizing Obama's policies, his leadership, and his overall appearance as a President. Given the situation we have now, Republicans, would you support another 8 years of Obama, 8 years of Hillary? Let's just pretend Hillary already won the election.

IMO, Obama's more like Bush. He just sort of continued his policies. Pretended not to, but did. Hillary seems more of the type to assert herself on the world stage.

Who's more dangerous? Was Obama really that bad? Sound off.

 

8 years was more than enough and 4 more years with Hillary would be even worse

 

The scenario would be 8 years of Hillary Clinton

 

I doubt we would survive that long

 

I'd take Obama, and here's why.

Obama really is more moderate in the technical sense. He panders to the extreme left socially. He needs to. It's like how George W Bush was to the extreme right- which is why Jeb was eaten alive in the primaries.

Obama is one of those guys I'd be friends with, get a beer with, but just disagree with about politics. I have liberal friends. Obama embedded himself in this race war which is a HUGE mistake, BUT he's one that can fix it too. Hillary cannot. Hillary isn't black, black voters are settling for her, rather than supporting for her compared to Obama. Hillary is straight up dangerous. She's a woman, wants to prove it that she can hang with the dudes, and F-ing hates Russia and China. I'd rather have Obama, who is scared (*)(*)(*)(*)less of them, than Hillary, who would be like "Oh yea Russia? How you like THESE APPLES.....BRRRRRRRRRRRRRRTTTT". There's no doubt that Republicans (me included) have been obstructing this administration. Whether for right, or wrong, it's happened. I'd rather let a President pass their policies and see them succeed or fail, than to have a stalemate for 8 years and have no progress.

Hillary won't stand for that (*)(*)(*)(*).

 

It's a nice thought. However, 8 years is enough. Just like I think the Senate should be limited to 3 terms, 2 terms for President seems adequate. He's leaving on a high note in terms of approval rating and has cleaned up a good deal, but not all of, Bush's mess.

Time to move on. Maybe in the future at some point, President Clinton will appoint him to SCOTUS. I think we'd need safety gear from all the right-wingers' heads a poppin'.

 

I'm not big on Obama at all, but I'd vote for him to have a third term in a heartbeat instead of voting for either Clinton or Trump. Not for a full 8 years, but for a third term and then see what new candidates pop up after 4.

But in reality I'd rather have a new candidate altogether, just not one that's dishonest, corrupt, and just plain terrible like Clinton and Trump both equally are.

 

Please change that. It is uncouth.

 

Neither. Obama continues to lose on the world stage and Hillary has never met a war she didn't like.

 

Well, he queered the military. He perverted the meaning of marriage. He justified perversion, polluting the environment into which families and decency struggle to survive, and children are born. He accused whites of racism. He divided the races. He justified criminal behavior. He vilified law enforcement. He put a target on Police Officers. He meddled in state affairs. He forced socialized medicine on the people. He doubled the national debt. And he utterly trashed the middle east.

So, four more years?......I don't think so.

 

Obama was never about hope and change. Hillary is cut from the same cloth. The line between progressives and neoconservatives is getting blurred more by the day.

I'd take Obama over Clinton, reluctantly. Obama isn't quite so aggressive with his globalism.

 

I would certainly like 8 more scandal free years and an active economy...so yes I would prefer Obama.

Having a pretty cool First Lady is nice as well.

 

Obama is only bad if you believe in robber barons dictating economic and trade policy. Like every president had done since Reagan began the dismantling of the FDR gov't that had cut off the nut sacks of the robber barons who tried to stage a failed coup on the man. Obama is the president of a group of robber barons, as Clinton will be. So if you are an average American, he is as bad as what came before him. All treasonous men, owned by robber barons, who own the banking cartel and all big corporations. Both parties are owned by these robber barons, but trump is not. So the entire system is working against him for Clinton will serve them, trump will not.

 

Hilarity promises to be an "Obama 3rd-term". Obama's eight years will have been the absolute worst by any American president in at least the last 100 years. He has lied repeatedly, about nearly everything, including his "masterpiece", Obamacare. And, he's broken (BROKEN) the law at least three times in the past five years....

Why in HELL would anybody but a worthless, welfare-sucking parasite want any more of that?!

."When I was working, I didn't have this. Now I just sit all day and grow more of it... thanks, Obama!"

 

What do you mean he "queered" my military? My outstanding squad leader is gay. He had shrapnel torn through both of his legs in Iraq. It was horrific. What does his sexual orientation have to do with defending you?

 

This is actually the reason I would rather have Hillary than Obama. Obama has been more responsible for these eight year's foreign polcy failures than Hillary. From what I've heard, Hillary actually wanted to do many things differently, but was overruled by Obama. Thus, what I know of Hilllary's foreign policy relative to Obama's, is that Obama's has demonstrably been a failure, and that Hillary is more hawkish. I thus prefer Hillary. Someone needs to stand up to Russia and China. Si vis pacem para bellum; peace through strength.

I can't understand how you'd actually prefer a leader who, in your own words, is scared (*)(*)(*)(*)less.

 

Because Hillary's too overly aggressive. She'll get her wish of a war with Russia which is something the world doesn't need right now. Obama's just trying to ignore them. IMO, we need a President that goes over to the Kremlin and says:

"Look Putin. Let's agree on a more sensible geopolitical goal. We'll end or provactive drills near your borders, if you do the same for our European allies. We'll lift the sanctions, and we'll go back to boosting the world economy. We don't need to be allies or friends, let's just build a business relationship".

 

Hillary is so embedded in her own bull(*)(*)(*)(*) its frightening. No way do I want her in for 8 years. I still don't know who I'm voting for or if I'm voting.

 

I would be ok with Obama to serve as president for life

 

Do you know what would be better though? If hillary would be able to say:

"Our sanctions and arms race are bankrupting you. Soon Russia will collapse and you will lose face and embarass yourself as an utter failure. Are you now willing to negotiate and stop being an annoying pest?"

See, that is negotiating from a position of strength. The west really has all the cards. We could bring Russia to their knees, easily. We just need someone -hillary- willing to do it. Then the Russians would come begging to make things normal again, which they could be, provided russia gave some concessions.

If you don't do that, you're just encouraging other nations to act up. Russia has the gdp the size of italy. They have a third world economy based on resource extraction. Their whole economy is tied to an economic system wholly in the control of the west. We got them by the balls, but we're not squeezing, but we ought to.

Don't you realise? You look weak. No one respects weakness, as Trump would tell you, and that's about the only thing he says that's true. Russia is humiliating you. They are provoking you and your allies. nations in "your sphere" (philippines, turkey) are openly talking about reorienting towards russia. You are made to look like fools, you are ridiculed, you are the laughing stock. You are supposed to be the hegemon of the western world, so (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*) act like it. You can't your allies to follow you, you can't get your enemies to respect you. historically speaking, THAT is what leads to war. Because, enemies will confuse your perceived weakness to be actual weakness. That is why the Japanese attacked you in ww2 btw, because they thought you were decadent cowards who wouldn't dare to fight back. What if Russia thinks that you are cowards who won't stand up for your friends, so they invade estonia, only to find out that you actually will defend estonia, and now ww3 has started? Weakness starts wars, not strength.

 

You can always write me in as president

- - - Updated - - -

Why do we need to bring Russia to their knees? Why not just carve out our geopolitical differences and move on? Backing them into a deep corner ends one way: war. It will be a NASTY one.

 

Because otherwise you will look weak and no one will respect you, that's why. You do realise that what you are suggesting is appeasment right? Russia is weaker than you, why should you appease them? Russia has humiliated you, why should you tolerate that? Russia is openly mocking you, and some of your friends are turning to Russia. Why should you allow that? Let me say again. they are WEAKER. There is no reason why you should allow this. You do not appease a weaker country which humiliates you, unless you want to invite further humiliation and disrespect from even weaker countries. Just look at the philippines and turkey, what they are saying about you. Soon everyone and their dog will call you (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*) and SoB's.

No, there will not be war. There are nukes you see, and that means mutually assured destruction. I honestly don't understand how you imagine the thought process of mr. Putin. Do you Seriously think that Putin will start ww3, which will mean the death of himself and of all russians, just because e.g. the US placed more troops in the baltic states? To any sensible rational person, to which I actually count mr Putin, it is pure nonsense to start ww3. As long as there is clear communication (e.g. "do this and i WILL use nukes") the danger of war is minimal. I grant you, communication right now isn't excellent, which dangerous, but the point is that an arms race, per se, isn't that dangerous.

 

You only have two ways of thinking: One is we're too weak, the other is war.

There's another option. Geopolitical negotiations and agreements. Guess what? We have them with China. It's part of the reason North Korea is allowed to even operate above sea level. We can work with Russia as a world, and then, if they decide to deviate off course, the world can take action. I think the best bet is to be REASONABLE.

 

So, after Russia has spit in your face, threaten some of your allies, convinced some of your other allies to turn against you, humiliated you, disrespected you... You just want to negotiate. Do you know what kind of signals that send? That you can spit in your faces and you won't do anything about it. Do you know what the slang word for behaving like is? being a (*)(*)(*)(*)(*) (female dog). you have to do SOMETHING. No one will take you seriously, and why would they? you set up red lines, and people can break them because you don't enforce them. You put up sanctions, but everyone knows you'll just drop them after a few years, so no one cares. You claim to be a leader, but your friends openly insult you and accuse you insulting things.

Who would want to follow such a country? Who would want to negotiate with such a country? Who would respect such a country?

Russia has ALREADY broken the rules, the rules which you set up. enforce them already! or, are you russia's female dog? yes, there are actually only two options here. Assert yourself, or be a (*)(*)(*)(*)(*).

 

How did Russia spit in our face? We sanctioned them twice before hand. Lol no one is humiliated.