upvote

points

by Loughla2 days ago |
comments
upvoteby hagbard_c2 days ago|
[-]
No, that depends on your viewpoint. Those who come from a "democrat" background will certainly consider Trump to be more controversial than Obama while those from a Republican background will see Obama - especially second-term Obama - as far more controversial than Trump. Independents will vary on their interpretation but Obama is not likely to end up in the history books as the 'Change agent' he promised to be and will mostly likely be seen as partly responsible for the deterioration of race relations in the USA due to his use of and support for identity politics in a (successful) attempt to win a second period by cobbling together the 'coalition of the oppressed'.

How Trump will end up in the history books wholly depends on whether he succeeds in his attempts to curtail globalism and save the USA from becoming insolvent due to the rising debt. If the economy fails his presidency will as well and with that he'll be remembered for all the controversy around his political career. If he succeeds he'll be seen as a 'realpolitiker' who pulled the USA out of the downward spiral it had been in since ... the late 90's? The end of the cold war?

Of course there is also the chance of a large-scale conflict breaking out during his watch in which case his place in the history books also depends on how that ends.

Time will tell.

reply
upvoteby Supermancho2 days ago|
parent|
next
[-]
> Obama is not likely to end up in the history books as the 'Change agent' he promised to be and will mostly likely be seen as partly responsible for the deterioration of race relations in the USA

That's a fantasy. His mere existence in the position, contradicts the premise. Hillary hoped to be in a similar position...history would have also been kind to her, despite her vicious nature by the obvious virtuous implications (a woman can become POTUS).

reply
upvoteby habinero2 days ago|
parent|
prev|
next
[-]
> partly responsible for the deterioration of race relations in the USA

This is just a euphemism for "he was black in public and lesser white people didn't like it".

reply
upvoteby lurk21 days ago|
parent|
next
[-]
Review the site guidelines:

> Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

reply
upvoteby lurk22 days ago|
parent|
prev|
next
[-]
[flagged]
reply
upvoteby hagbard_c1 days ago|
parent|
prev|
next
[-]
Yes, everything I don't agree with is racist. It is time to drop that tired old trope, if you don't want to accept it from me accept it from Thomas Sowell:

“Racism is not dead, but it is on life support – kept alive by politicians, race hustlers and people who get a sense of superiority by denouncing others as ‘racists”

https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/11151740-racism-is-not-dead...

reply
upvoteby SpicyLemonZest2 days ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
No, that's not accurate. When people talk about the "deterioration of race relations", they're referring to a well-documented phenomenon (https://news.gallup.com/poll/1687/race-relations.aspx) where poll respondents say race relations are bad (and trending downwards) since 2015 while they were good from 2001 to 2013. I'm skeptical that Obama bears any responsibility for this, given that the trend didn't start until his second term, but it's a real trend and not a euphemism.
reply
upvoteby anigbrowl2 days ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
It's hard to take you seriously when you employ 'democrat' background and Republican as contrasting terms. Referring to the Democratic party and its supporters is more easily effected by saying [the] Democrats. This sort of baity rhetoric undermines any aspirations to objectivity.
reply
upvoteby hagbard_c2 days ago|
parent|
[-]
You can look through (and may already have done so) my comment history for my explanation for putting "democratic" between quotes. In short it is because the party is not democratic and thus should not be called such. Had they been democratic they'd have run Bernie Sanders instead of Clinton, they'd have had primaries where there were none, they'd have allowed people like RFK and Tulsi Gabbard to have a shot at the candidacy (and might have won the presidency that way, more fool them). The "democratic" party is run by the DNC, not by its constituents. It does not listen to those constituents, the people or 'δημος' ('dèmos', Greek for 'municipality' or 'city', i.e. the people) in 'δημοκρατία'. If and when the party becomes true to its moniker I'll call them by their chosen name, until such a time they're the "democratic" party. Truth in advertising is a good thing after all.
reply