Interesting Trump Critique of Trump from David Frum

[Corso]

Are you referring to the supposed selective targeting of Tea Party and similar organizations during the tax-exempt status application process? The one that was investigated and no charges brought? And the one where the final report clarifies that targeted groups for their BOLO list came from across the political spectrum, including left leaning groups like "Occupy" and ACORN?

Why yes I am. I f I recall, it wasn’t a full investigation, Lerner pleaded the 5th and didn’t testify, although she visited the WH over 150 times, all the “missing” emails, IRS employees testified they targeted certain rich leaning groups under orders. And conversations between her and Barry were declared “presidential privilege", or something like that.

I don’t think the truth was settled here at all.

[Matthew Strongin]

Why yes I am. I f I recall, it wasn’t a full investigation, Lerner pleaded the 5th and didn’t testify, although she visited the WH over 150 times, all the “missing” emails, IRS employees testified they targeted certain rich leaning groups under orders. And conversations between her and Barry were declared “presidential privilege", or something like that.

I don’t think the truth was settled here at all.

It seems pretty clear that Lerner made mistakes and it makes sense she'd plead the 5th. My recollection is that there were lengthy investigations, one of which culminating in a recent report from the Treasury department. Short of her visiting the WH, I don't see where there's a smoking gun connecting Obama to the "scandal."

[0nelove]

I'm more troubled by those who helped build the monster and find his table manners to their liking... And those who are willing to avert their eyes as long as their goals are being met.

We talking about Soros here?

[theflashunc]

Here’s the problem I see with Barry: Criticize him, and you’re branded a racists. (yeah, I’ve been called that here simple for not liking Obama) Simple. He’s protected. That goes for the media, and the house and senate. No one wanted to be branded the big R, and risk re-election. No one (but FOX, and they can’t launch senate investigations) wanted to criticize the first African American President. PERIOD.

Uh, bruh, you've got prominent African-American intellectuals having a pretty serious and deep public debate about Obama's legacy already. And it ain't all unicorns and rainbows. For real, if you think there's been no criticism of Obama for nigh on the last decade, you haven't been reading terribly deeply. And I'm omitting the vein of tan suit, fancy mustard nonsense Fox News considered controversy and criticism. Or the people burning him in effigy at rallies that, yeah sure, had nothing to do with race.

Pity the sad legacy of Barack Obama | Cornel West | Opinion | The Guardian

Through the Lens of the Obama Years, Ta-Nehisi Coates Reckons With Race, Identity and Trump - The New York Times

Which is to say nothing of the other criticisms of his administration's policies while he was in office. Like, say, his expansion of the drone strike program:
The Drone Papers

[Scott G.]

I have never seen that movie, but am amazed that Newman was cast as Long. I guess they decided the makeup hours did not meet the film's budget, and let Newman look like Newman.

See the original movie, Broderick Crawford as the Kingfish.
or "A Lion is in the Streets", with Jimmy Cagney as a lightly disguised Huey Long.

[fastupslowdown]

Trump is creating huge economic damage waiting to happen. The United States is finding it outside of huge trading alliances such as TPP which is now proceeding just without the U.S. And the increased use of tarriffs and quotas which are beginning to happen means higher costs for consumers and businesses. Examples are solar panels and metals which raise the price of construction and solar energy. I don't really get this. If someone wants to sell you something below cost the rationale business decision is to buy as much of it as possible. Long term such interference can only make the u.s. less competitive and result in a lower GDP

The attacks Trump is engaging in, going after justices, law enforcement, the media and politicians can only weaken our political system. _This isn't a democrat vs republican issue but a facist vs free market and democracy question -Mike G

[Corso]

Uh, bruh, you've got prominent African-American intellectuals having a pretty serious and deep public debate about Obama's legacy already. And it ain't all unicorns and rainbows. For real, if you think there's been no criticism of Obama for nigh on the last decade, you haven't been reading terribly deeply. And I'm omitting the vein of tan suit, fancy mustard nonsense Fox News considered controversy and criticism. Or the people burning him in effigy at rallies that, yeah sure, had nothing to do with race.

Pity the sad legacy of Barack Obama | Cornel West | Opinion | The Guardian

Through the Lens of the Obama Years, Ta-Nehisi Coates Reckons With Race, Identity and Trump - The New York Times

Which is to say nothing of the other criticisms of his administration's policies while he was in office. Like, say, his expansion of the drone strike program:
The Drone Papers

Thank you for those links. I wish some here who believed he walked on water would read them.
I wish the mass media would have reported on him as they report on Trump.
I wish Obama waited a few more years and built trust on both sides of the aisle before running for President.
I wish a lot of things, mostly for everyone to be treated equally and fairly.

[thollandpe]

Here’s the problem I see with Barry: Criticize him, and you're branded a racists. (yeah, I've been called that here simple for not liking Obama) Simple. He's protected. That goes for the media, and the house and senate. No one wanted to be branded the big R, and risk re-election. No one (but FOX, and they can't launch senate investigations) wanted to criticize the first African American President. PERIOD.

PERIOD?

I don't see how this observation holds if you actually read the news during Obama's term. Even discounting Fox News, and noisemakers like Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, Matt Drudge, and Michelle Malkin. Ignore them for the moment. Let's ignore the climate change deniers too.

The New York Times, Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, Bloomberg, NPR all published regular criticisms of Obama and his administration's policies. George Will and David Brooks. Laura Ingrahm. Mary O'Grady, Peggy Noonan. You didn't read or hear anything critical of Obamacare? Apology tour?

I don't think being critical of Obama should brand one (or you) a racist, I'm sorry if that happened here, that's bullshit. But I don't think you have a leg to stand on when you say Obama got a free pass.

And notice how I said that without shouting "YOU LIE!"

I wish the mass media would have reported on him as they report on Trump.

There is no comparison between Obama's conduct and Trump's, in the campaign or in the office. Trump's lying, his personal/professional entanglements, his bon mots, ad hominems, and seeming disregard for conduct becoming of the office is unprecedented. Unpresidented!

Equitable does not mean equal. And Trump's baiting of the press (and us) may actually be a strategy, part of his MO. Chaos.

[Corso]

Ok, for the sake of keeping this on the current President, I’ll agree my PERIOD was not entirely appropriate.
I’ll move on from Obama, unless it’s relative to the present.
I fully agree, Trump does not act presidential in the traditional sense. But even the smoothest of politicians-presidents- are and have lied to us too.

[HorsCat]

The Republican Party had no interest in working with Obama on anything, for any reason, ever, from day 0. When you consider the state of the country he inherited and the headwinds he faced, it's a wonder he acheived what he did.

Republicans had it in for Obama before Day 1 - The Washington Post

[choke]

All but disappeared? Not around here, and not in the publications I read. There was plenty to say about Obama's escalation of drone warfare. To imply that pacifists and anti-war groups, like the Raging Grannies seen below, are merely partisan is simply bunk.

Pissed off by war, even when conducted on a Democrat's watch.

Sure, some still protested....but a good chunk stopped.

A third possibility, though, is that the election of Barack Obama sapped the energy of the U.S. antiwar movement. Reihan Salam points to a 2011 paper by sociologists Michael T. Heaney and Fabio Rojas, who find that antiwar protests shrunk very quickly after Obama took office in 2008 — mainly because Democrats were less likely to show up:

Drawing upon 5,398 surveys of demonstrators at antiwar protests, interviews with movement leaders, and ethnographic observation, this article argues that the antiwar movement demobilized as Democrats, who had been motivated to participate by anti-Republican sentiments, withdrew from antiwar protests when the Democratic Party achieved electoral success, if not policy success in ending the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

How Obama demobilized the antiwar movement - The Washington Post

And from the study quoted above:

However, after Obama’s election as president, Democratic participation in antiwar activities plunged, falling from 37 percent in January 2009 to a low of 19 percent in November 2009, and registering 22 percent in December 2009. In contrast, members of third parties became proportionately more prevalent in the movement, rising from 16 percent in January 2009 to a high of 34 percent in November 2009, and registering 24 percent in December 2009.

Since Democrats are more numerous in the population at large than are members of third parties, the withdrawal of Democrats from the movement in 2009 appears to be a significant explanation for the falling size of antiwar protests. Thus, we have identified the kernel of the linkage between Democratic partisanship and the demobilization of the antiwar movement.

http://www-personal.umich.edu/~mhean...Contention.pdf

[0nelove]

When you consider the state of the country he inherited and the headwinds he faced, it's a wonder he acheived what he did.

I mean this totally seriously, but what did he achieve?

He left the country and Democratic party so badly in shambles that Trump was elected. Just contemplate that. Such a large majority of the US were so tired of things being so bad for so long that they elected Trump. This includes African Americans and other minorities as well who all perceived things get worse for them. Its not just because Hilary is Hilary that she lost. Populists are not elected or able to take power anywhere in the world nor anywhere in history after things have been good. They always come to power after things have been bad. And they always have the same message: "We will be great again."

Obama looked great, was popular, and spoke well, but in terms of policy both domestic and abroad he was a complete and utter failure that reduced the power and livelihood of the United States and it's citizens. Through his total mismanagement of virtually everything (except the publicity of him and his family) he setup Syria, Trump, ISIS, Yemen, and a ton of other things, but hey, he looked good doing it.

[thollandpe]

Populists are not elected or able to take power anywhere in the world nor anywhere in history after things have been good.

I would pick con man before populist as a label. And there is always a whole spectrum of weaknesses to exploit, especially for a good con man.

[jclay]

Uh, bruh, you've got prominent African-American intellectuals having a pretty serious and deep public debate about Obama's legacy already. And it ain't all unicorns and rainbows. For real, if you think there's been no criticism of Obama for nigh on the last decade, you haven't been reading terribly deeply. And I'm omitting the vein of tan suit, fancy mustard nonsense Fox News considered controversy and criticism. Or the people burning him in effigy at rallies that, yeah sure, had nothing to do with race.

Pity the sad legacy of Barack Obama | Cornel West | Opinion | The Guardian

Through the Lens of the Obama Years, Ta-Nehisi Coates Reckons With Race, Identity and Trump - The New York Times

Which is to say nothing of the other criticisms of his administration's policies while he was in office. Like, say, his expansion of the drone strike program:
The Drone Papers

I could not agree more. And it extends to the larger Democratic Party apparatus.

[randonneur]

And the increased use of tarriffs and quotas which are beginning to happen means higher costs for consumers and businesses. Examples are solar panels and metals which raise the price of construction and solar energy. I don't really get this.

(Emphasis mine) I can't help but think that this particular tariff is about extending profits for big oil...

ETA: just saw the other thread... I'm slow on this and y'all are already on it...