Newsgroup: it.politica
Titolo: Obama il pazziello della festa

Questa sottospece di presidente, se così si può chiamare, in due mandati non ha fatto un cazzo; prometteva di risolvere il problema della libera vendita delle armi e invece si sono vendute più armi e le stragi sono aumentate; prometteva assistenza sanitaria gratuita per tutti, e invece la gente povera è aumentata a dismisura e muore per un banale attacco di appendicite.
Questo presidente insomma, una spece di pazziello della festa da esibire, una sorta di mamozio nero da portare in processione per far finta che il paese non è razzista e sminuire, per far passare sottogamba il sistematico genoicidio della popolazione negroide da parte di esponenti dello Stato.

 Questa 
 
Che domenica di merda che hai passato, vero Gennaro , non é che te ne
vai in depressione e affoghi nella merda dove vivi ?
-- 
Angelo


Ho passato una domenica stupenda con una ragazza meravigliosa che mi guardava estasiatati faccio invidia, vero? A me le donne mi corrono appresso.

 A me le donne mi corrono appresso.
 
Ci credo , sicuramente vai in giro a fare pacchi.
-- 
Angelo

 Questa sottospece di presidente, se così si può chiamare, in due mandati non ha fatto un cazzo; 
 
Povero Gennarino, dove vivi? Non ti lasciano guardare la TV? Non ti danno i giornali?
 
Non sai che OBAMA il GRANDE ha trovato gli USA sull'orlo del default e li ha salvati?
Non sai che ha salvato l'industria dell'auto e dimezzato la disoccupazione?
 
Lo sai che se renzi avesse aftto quello che ha fatto Obama oggi lo porterebbero in trionfo?
 
Lo sai che OBAMA il GRANDE ha fatto pace con Cuba e con l'Iran, che ha dto una sanità gratuita ai poveri?
 
Lo sai che il genio dell'economaia KRUGMAN ( che ne sa un po' più di te  Gennarì!) ha posto Obama tra i grandi? Tra Washington e Lincoln?
 
Chiedi all'infermiere di lasciarti guardare i vecchi gironali almeno.
 
e


La pace con Cuba era un fatto fisiologico, doveva avvenire per forza dopo la dissoluzione dell'Unione Sovietica, ed è arrivato anche troppo in ritardo, solo una coincidenza che sia avvenuta durante il mandato del presidente fantoccio.

 Lo sai che il genio dell'economaia KRUGMAN ( che ne sa un po' più di te  Gennarì!) ha posto Obama tra i grandi? Tra Washington e Lincoln?
 
Se vogliamo postare per intero, per favore, l'articolo scritto da 
Krugman, sennò te lo cerco e te lo posto io, Ernesto.
 
Krugman dice tutt'altro.
 
Fai il buono, sennò non posso farci proprio niente (Johnny Dorelli).
 

 La pace con Cuba era un fatto fisiologico,
 
Quale pace? L'embargo non è stato tolto.
 


(Johnny Dorelli l'ho conosciuto: persona orribile.)
======================================================
 
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/in-defense-of-obama-20141008
 
 
e poi
 
Like many political junkies, I’ve been spending far too much time looking at polls and trying to understand their implications. Can Donald Trump really win his party’s nomination? (Yes.) Can Bernie Sanders? (No.) But the primaries aren’t the only things being polled; we’re still getting updates on President Obama’s overall approval. And something striking has happened on that front.
 
At the end of 2015 Mr. Obama was still underwater, with significantly more Americans disapproving than approving. Since then, however, his approval has risen sharply while disapproval has plunged. He’s still only in modestly positive territory, but the net movement in polling averages has been about 11 percentage points, which is a lot.
 
What’s going on?
 
Well, one answer is that voters have lately been given a taste of what really bad leaders look like. But I’d like to think that the public is also starting to realize just how successful the Obama administration has been in addressing America’s problems. And there are lessons from that success for those willing to learn.
 
I know that it’s hard for many people on both sides to wrap their minds around the notion of Obama-as-success. On the left, those caught up in the enthusiasms of 2008 feel let down by the prosaic reality of governing in a deeply polarized political system. Meanwhile, conservative ideology predicts disaster from any attempt to tax the rich, help the less fortunate and rein in the excesses of the market; and what are you going to believe, the ideology or your own lying eyes?
 
But the successes are there for all to see.
 
Start with the economy. You might argue that presidents don’t have as much effect on economic performance as voters seem to imagine — especially presidents facing scorched-earth opposition from Congress for most of their time in office. But that misses the point: Republicans have spent the past seven years claiming incessantly that Mr. Obama’s policies are a “job killing” disaster, destroying business incentives, so it’s important news if the economy has performed well.
 
And it has: We’ve gained 10 million private-sector jobs since Mr. Obama took office, and unemployment is below 5 percent. True, there are still some areas of disappointment — low labor force participation, weak wage growth. But just imagine the boasting we’d be hearing if Mitt Romney occupied the White House.
 
Then there’s health reform, which has (don’t tell anyone) been meeting its goals.
 
Back in 2012, just after the Supreme Court made it possible for states to reject the Medicaid expansion, the Congressional Budget Office predicted that by now 89 percent of the nonelderly population would be covered; the actual number is 90 percent.
 
The details have been something of a surprise: fewer people than expected signing up on the exchanges, but fewer employers than expected dropping coverage, and more people signing up for Medicaid — which means, incidentally, that Obamacare is looking much more like a single-payer system than anyone seems to realize. But the point is that reform has indeed delivered the big improvements in coverage it promised, and has done so at lower cost than expected.
 
Then there’s financial reform, which the left considers toothless and the right considers destructive. In fact, while the big banks haven’t been broken up, excessive leverage — the real threat to financial stability — has been greatly reduced. And as for the economic effects, have I mentioned how well we’ve done on job creation?
 
Last but one hopes not least, the Obama administration has used executive authority to take steps on the environment that, if not canceled by a Republican president and upheld by future Supreme Courts, will amount to very significant action on climate change.
 
All in all, it’s quite a record. Assuming Democrats hold the presidency, Mr. Obama will emerge as a hugely consequential president — more than Reagan. And I’m sure Republicans will learn a lot from his achievements.
 
April fools!
Sign Up for the Opinion Today Newsletter
 
Every weekday, get thought-provoking commentary from Op-Ed columnists, The Times editorial board and contributing writers from around the world.
 
Seriously, there is essentially no chance that conservatives, whose ideas haven’t changed in decades, will reconsider their dogma. But maybe progressives will be more open-minded.
 
The 2008 election didn’t bring the political transformation Obama enthusiasts expected, nor did it destroy the power of the vested interests: Wall Street, the medical-industrial complex and the fossil fuel lobby are all still out there, using their money to buy influence. But they have been pushed back in ways that have made American lives better and more secure.
 
The lesson of the Obama years, in other words, is that success doesn’t have to be complete to be very real. 
You say you want a revolution? Well, you can’t always get what you want — but if you try sometimes, you just might find, you get what you need.
 
Critics have branded him weak and feckless on foreign policy, but an inside look reveals how the president faced down the war machine
 
None of that happened. 
Obama's team, as far as we can tell, never even considered going after the deceptions that took us to Baghdad, perhaps because they believed that this would play very badly at a time of financial crisis. 
On overall foreign policy, Obama has been essentially a normal post-Vietnam president, reluctant to commit U.S. ground troops and eager to extract them from ongoing commitments, but quite willing to bomb people considered threatening to U.S. interests. And he has defended the prerogatives of the NSA and the surveillance state in general.
 
Could and should he have been different? The truth is that I have no special expertise here; as an ordinary concerned citizen, I worry about the precedent of allowing what amount to war crimes to go not just unpunished but uninvestigated, even while appreciating that a modern version of the 1970s Church committee hearings on CIA abuses might well have been a political disaster, and undermined the policy achievements I've tried to highlight. 
 
What I would say is that even if Obama is just an ordinary president on national security issues, that's a huge improvement over what came before and what we would have had if John McCain or Mitt Romney had won. It's hard to get excited about a policy of not going to war gratuitously, but it's a big deal compared with the alternative.
 
SOCIAL CHANGE
 
In 2004, social issues, along with national security, were cudgels the right used to bludgeon liberals – I like to say that Bush won re-election by posing as America's defender against gay married terrorists. Ten years later, and the scene is transformed: Democrats have turned these social issues – especially women's rights – against Republicans; gay marriage has been widely legalized with approval or at least indifference from the wider public. We have, in a remarkably short stretch of time, become a notably more tolerant, open-minded nation.
 
Barack Obama has been more a follower than a leader on these issues. But at least he has been willing to follow the country's new open-mindedness. We shouldn't take this for granted. Before the Obama presidency, Democrats were in a kind of reflexive cringe on social issues, acting as if the religious right had far more power than it really does and ignoring the growing constituency on the other side. It's easy to imagine that if someone else had been president these past six years, Democrats would still be cringing as if it were 2004. Thankfully, they aren't. And the end of the cringe also, I'd argue, helped empower them to seek real change on substantive issues from health reform to the environment. Which brings me back to domestic issues.
 
As you can see, there's a theme running through each of the areas of domestic policy I've covered. In each case, Obama delivered less than his supporters wanted, less than the country arguably deserved, but more than his current detractors acknowledge. The extent of his partial success ranges from the pretty good to the not-so-bad to the ugly. Health reform looks pretty good, especially in historical perspective – remember, even Social Security, in its original FDR version, only covered around half the workforce. Financial reform is, I'd argue, not so bad – it's not the second coming of Glass-Steagall, but there's a lot more protection against runaway finance than anyone except angry Wall Streeters seems to realize. Economic policy wasn't enough to avoid a very ugly period of high unemployment, but Obama did at least mitigate the worst.
 
And as far as climate policy goes, there's reason for hope, but we'll have to see.
 
Am I damning with faint praise? Not at all. This is what a successful presidency looks like. No president gets to do everything his supporters expected him to. FDR left behind a reformed nation, but one in which the wealthy retained a lot of power and privilege. On the other side, for all his anti-government rhetoric, Reagan left the core institutions of the New Deal and the Great Society in place. I don't care about the fact that Obama hasn't lived up to the golden dreams of 2008, and I care even less about his approval rating. 
I do care that he has, when all is said and done, achieved a lot. That is, as Joe Biden didn't quite say, a big deal.