Obama's Legacy

[Raoul]

There are still tonnes of mistakes, bad intel and in some cases a lack of any care about potential collateral damage. You can say the intent is always to kill terrorists only but the reality is that decisions are made without regard to potential collateral damage. So the moral question is still there. For me at least. I don't think the decision makers can be absolved of all guilt simply because the company line is "we only intend to kill terrorists, any civilians are just an accident, sorry". And then you can get into much more tricky moral quandaries. For instance deals made with warlords who abuse human rights, overlooking crimes from dictators, strongmen, royalty because some feel it is in the geo-strategic interest of the US to mollify human rights abusers, etc.

Decisions are made with respect to potential collateral damage, but there's little that can be done in certain instances where terrorists are embedded in and moving around civilian populations. There are clear ROEs on this sort of thing, although things do go wrong if there's bad intel involved and the suspect is either no longer there, mistaken identity, or there are more civilians nearby than the intel suggested. That's why these things are carefully scrutinized before they give the go ahead (and yet its still not an exact science and yes people do die). There is however a massive difference between specific targeted killings of terrorists during war time and the indiscriminate carpet bombing of civilians that took place in generations past and even more so during the great wars and in the century before that.

 

[oneniltothearsenal]

Decisions are made with respect to potential collateral damage, but there's little that can be done in certain instances where terrorists are embedded in and moving around civilian populations. There are clear ROEs on this sort of thing, although things do go wrong if there's bad intel involved and the suspect is either no longer there, mistaken identity, or there are more civilians nearby than the intel suggested. That's why these things are carefully scrutinized before they give the go ahead (and yet its still not an exact science and yes people do die). There is however a massive difference between specific targeted killings of terrorists during war time and the indiscriminate carpet bombing of civilians that took place in generations past and even more so during the great wars and in the century before that.

Okay but that's not really related to my original question. I wasn't comparing modern Presidents to leaders during WWI and WWII.

Are you saying that because of these factors you believe owning slaves makes Washington and Jefferson morally worse than Reagan, Clinton, Bush 1 & 2, Obama and Trump in your eyes?

 

[Eboue]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

 

[Eboue]

It would have been interesting to see him operate in a world that he had house and senate behind him.

Far from a good president. Not a bad president though. If he wasn’t black he’d be forgettable and bland.

He broke ground. Trod a path. There’s achievement there. Even if it was all largely meaningless.

Hands down Number 1 president to share a beer with though. Kills me that people register Trump as the first Celebrity President. Obama turned the Oval Office into a paparazzi zone. He’s a good dude.

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

 

[DavidDeSchmikes]

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jul/31/cia-director-john-brennan-lied-senate

Obama should have fired Brennan

 

[Raoul]

Okay but that's not really related to my original question. I wasn't comparing modern Presidents to leaders during WWI and WWII.

Are you saying that because of these factors you believe owning slaves makes Washington and Jefferson morally worse than Reagan, Clinton, Bush 1 & 2, Obama and Trump in your eyes?

I don't think it makes them any less or more moral than those in the present since each of them are acting according to the social rules and norms of the period during which they governed. Each of the Presidents were democratically elected and as such had to conform to some degree of decorum that the electorate of their period were willing to tolerate. Authoritarians in other countries on the other hand, are under no such limitations and can do whatever they want.

 

[freeurmind]

You can't force Congress to vote for the legislation you are in favour of.

 

[UnrelatedPsuedo]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

Would you like me to engage in a debate with a third parties views on the subject?

Or do you have some?

 

[oneniltothearsenal]

I don't think it makes them any less or more moral than those in the present since each of them are acting according to the social rules and norms of the period during which they governed. Each of the Presidents were democratically elected and as such had to conform to some degree of decorum that the electorate of their period were willing to tolerate. Authoritarians in other countries on the other hand, are under no such limitations and can do whatever they want.

So your standard is evaluating morality based on the social norms and social rules of the time? Does this apply only to Presidents or do you use this standard in general when looking back on history?

Do you see any inherent problems with just using the social norms of the time and place as the moral standard for leaders instead of a moral system that tries to be objective like Utilitarianism or Kant's categorical imperative?

 

[Eboue]

Would you like me to engage in a debate with a third parties views on the subject?

Or do you have some?

Would you like me to pass off other peoples views as my own? I agree with his point, which can be made by professional writers better than it can be made by me.

 

[Raoul]

So your standard is evaluating morality based on the social norms and social rules of the time? Does this apply only to Presidents or do you use this standard in general when looking back on history?

Do you see any inherent problems with just using the social norms of the time and place as the moral standard for leaders instead of a moral system that tries to be objective like Utilitarianism or Kant's categorical imperative?

I generally separate democratically elected leaders with authoritarians and autocrats, since the former have to varying degrees, the support of the publics who voted then into office, and as such, they are acting on behalf of a mandate of their constituents. In a democratic system, it would be pretty normal for Presidents and PMs to act based on the boundary conditions set in place by democratic elections. If they violate such norms, the penalty would be getting voted out. In authoritarian systems, dictators are acting on behalf of their own moral standards (or lack thereof), which in their cases would focus on self-preservation through violence, conquest, and suppression of dissent.

 

[UnrelatedPsuedo]

Would you like me to pass off other peoples views as my own? I agree with his point, which can be made by professional writers better than it can be made by me.

Eric Holder, Matt Stoller, Noah Kulwin, Kamala Harris, or Ken Thomas’ views?

My question is sincere. I don’t have a Twitter account so I don’t know what you’ve quoted and me what context your putting it in.

But yes. I do want you to pass off other people’s views as your own, if it’s something you agree with.

Far better that than quoting a response to a tweet that links to an article that doesn’t mention Obama at all that is almost guaranteed to state something that you disagree with.

 

[MTF]

So your standard is evaluating morality based on the social norms and social rules of the time? Does this apply only to Presidents or do you use this standard in general when looking back on history?

Do you see any inherent problems with just using the social norms of the time and place as the moral standard for leaders instead of a moral system that tries to be objective like Utilitarianism or Kant's categorical imperative?

I know you're asking Raoul, but I can answer that personally I use the standard in general. I'm not trying to anoint saints when I look at history... did someone seem more moral/ethical than the standards of the time? Good. Were they a leader that by way of their above average morality managed to further progress our societies towards a more just configuration? Great.

Holding them to ideals that aren't yet achieved today is pointless. Everyone fails by those standards, and its indifferent anyways... the history is as it is, my judgement of it doesn't actually change it.

 

[oneniltothearsenal]

I generally separate democratically elected leaders with authoritarians and autocrats, since the former have to varying degrees, the support of the publics who voted then into office, and as such, they are acting on behalf of a mandate of their constituents. In a democratic system, it would be pretty normal for Presidents and PMs to act based on the boundary conditions set in place by democratic elections. If they violate such norms, the penalty would be getting voted out. In authoritarian systems, dictators are acting on behalf of their own moral standards (or lack thereof), which in their cases would focus on self-preservation through violence, conquest, and suppression of dissent.

I know you're asking Raoul, but I can answer that personally I use the standard in general. I'm not trying to anoint saints when I look at history... did someone seem more moral/ethical than the standards of the time? Good. Were they a leader that by way of their above average morality managed to further progress our societies towards a more just configuration? Great.

Holding them to ideals that aren't yet achieved today is pointless. Everyone fails by those standards, and its indifferent anyways... the history is as it is, my judgement of it doesn't actually change it.

I'm not talking about applying today's moral standards to the past. But more asking if a leader has a responsibility to apply any moral standard beyond just what is considered the conventional social norms of the time and place?

Is it not fair to expect leaders to be beyond the social norms of the time but still within the general knowledge of the time? Or to put it another way is it fair to want the leaders be above the lowest common denominator social norms of the time?

 

[Eboue]

Eric Holder, Matt Stoller, Noah Kulwin, Kamala Harris, or Ken Thomas’ views?

My question is sincere. I don’t have a Twitter account so I don’t know what you’ve quoted and me what context your putting it in.

But yes. I do want you to pass off other people’s views as your own, if it’s something you agree with.

Far better that than quoting a response to a tweet that links to an article that doesn’t mention Obama at all that is almost guaranteed to state something that you disagree with.

The gist of it is that the "Obama and his team wanted to do better but were blocked by Republicans" doesnt really hold water because Holder and Obama are proud of what they did and don't see it as some ambition that was thwarted.

Libs love to excuse Obama by saying he wanted to do better but couldn't. The point is that Obama and Holder did what they wanted and are proud of it.

 

[Raoul]

I'm not talking about applying today's moral standards to the past. But more asking if a leader has a responsibility to apply any moral standard beyond just what is considered the conventional social norms of the time and place?

Is it not fair to expect leaders to be beyond the social norms of the time but still within the general knowledge of the time? Or to put it another way is it fair to want the leaders be above the lowest common denominator social norms of the time?

The short answer is no. Leaders aren't obliged to be morally superior than the publics who vote them into office. They can at times make decisions based on their own sense of personal morality but they wouldn't over time stray too far from the overarching norms of the people who put them into office.

 

[MTF]

I'm not talking about applying today's moral standards to the past. But more asking if a leader has a responsibility to apply any moral standard beyond just what is considered the conventional social norms of the time and place?

Is it not fair to expect leaders to be beyond the social norms of the time but still within the general knowledge of the time? Or to put it another way is it fair to want the leaders be above the lowest common denominator social norms of the time?

Its good when a leader has higher moral standards than those of the time and society. I generally have positive views of those leaders. But do I expect it? Given that most leaders across history and different countries were no better or worse than their societies, I don't expect it.

 

[oneniltothearsenal]

The short answer is no. Leaders aren't obliged to be morally superior than the publics who vote them into office. They can at times make decisions based on their own sense of personal morality but they wouldn't over time stray too far from the overarching norms of the people who put them into office.

Doesn't this run into JS Mill's tyranny of the majority problem? Especially in a Democracy like the modern US how are you even defining the morality of the general public.
How to even define the morality of the "general public" when today the social norms are so divided among sub-divisions of the population?

Trump won an election based on a arcane non-Democratic system, neither candidate even reached 50% of votes and voter turnout was low compared to other democracies. So where is the moral mandate? If the public has a split morality then doesn't make it almost impossible to even judge a modern Pres like Trump based on your moral standards?

(of course you could still judge based on other standards)

Its good when a leader has higher moral standards than those of the time and society. I generally have positive views of those leaders. But do I expect it? Given that most leaders across history and different countries were no better or worse than their societies, I don't expect it.

Same basic question as to Raoul. Doesn't this make it harder to judge Trump for instance on any kind of moral level because he is just a reflection of his party's social norms c.2018?

 

[Raoul]

Doesn't this run into JS Mill's tyranny of the majority problem? Especially in a Democracy like the modern US how are you even defining the morality of the general public.
How to even define the morality of the "general public" when today the social norms are so divided among sub-divisions of the population?

Trump won an election based on a arcane non-Democratic system, neither candidate even reached 50% of votes and voter turnout was low compared to other democracies. So where is the moral mandate? If the public has a split morality then doesn't make it almost impossible to even judge a modern Pres like Trump based on your moral standards?

(of course you could still judge based on other standards)



Same basic question as to Raoul. Doesn't this make it harder to judge Trump for instance on any kind of moral level because he is just a reflection of his party's social norms c.2018?

There are obviously varying degrees of real democracy and you could make a very good case that the electoral college is a very poor version of a democratic system. It is despite its flaws, still democratic and as such the President to a degree, represents the values of those who voted him into office. In terms of judging Trump's actions through a moral lense, if he strays too far from social norms (and he certainly has) then the system, if it works properly, will put him under intense pressure and will penalize him either by impeachment or voting him out of office and indicting him for criminal prosecution after he leaves office. The Republican party will also pay a price by probably getting marginalized as a party of corporate stooges and race baiting Trump apologists and will accordingly get penalized along the way (as they have already been in the mid terms and by losing Governorships).

 

[MTF]

Same basic question as to Raoul. Doesn't this make it harder to judge Trump for instance on any kind of moral level because he is just a reflection of his party's social norms c.2018?

A bit different because I'm living at the same time, so I can apply my own morality. What I try not to do is to apply my 2019 morality to 1700... who knows what kind of cnut I was likely to be back then? (I'm still a cnut today).

Also, Trump is being widely criticized by society in the present. When people read the newspapers of today and whatnot that will be clear. I don't necessarily imagine that the leading newspapers of 1779 were blasting Washington, Jefferson, Madison, etc. for being slave owners.

 

[UnrelatedPsuedo]

The gist of it is that the "Obama and his team wanted to do better but were blocked by Republicans" doesnt really hold water because Holder and Obama are proud of what they did and don't see it as some ambition that was thwarted.

Libs love to excuse Obama by saying he wanted to do better but couldn't. The point is that Obama and Holder did what they wanted and are proud of it.

Which has nothing to do with my comment which was;

“It would have been interesting to see yadda yadda”

Also don’t give a damn what ‘Libs’ love to excuse as I’m from a developed nation.

 

[Eboue]

well this was fun

 

[oneniltothearsenal]

There are obviously varying degrees of real democracy and you could make a very good case that the electoral college is a very poor version of a democratic system. It is despite its flaws, still democratic and as such the President to a degree, represents the values of those who voted him into office. In terms of judging Trump's actions through a moral lense, if he strays too far from social norms (and he certainly has) then the system, if it works properly, will put him under intense pressure and will penalize him either by impeachment or voting him out of office and indicting him for criminal prosecution after he leaves office. The Republican party will also pay a price by probably getting marginalized as a party of corporate stooges and Trump apologists and will accordingly get penalized along the way (as they have already been in the mid terms and by losing Governorships).

I'm not sure how you can conclude that definitively though. He still has support of 85-95% of conservatives. When I tune around the AM radio dial driving in different counties I hear a dozen different talk show hosts and their callers with full moral support of Trump especially on the immigration and the wall shutdown. In general I don't hear wildly different daily criticism of Trump among average people than the typical conservative-liberal divide on Obama and Bush before that.

I hope you're right about the GOP becoming marginalized but I haven't seen any actual evidence of this happening in my day to day life. It seems just as divided half-half as it always was.

This is why I wonder how you can just use social norms of the time to judge today.

A bit different because I'm living at the same time, so I can apply my own morality. What I try not to do is to apply my 2019 morality to 1700... who knows what kind of cnut I was likely to be back then? (I'm still a cnut today).

Also, Trump is being widely criticized by society in the present. When people read the newspapers of today and whatnot that will be clear. I don't necessarily imagine that the leading newspapers of 1779 were blasting Washington, Jefferson, Madison, etc. for being slave owners.

Okay this makes a lot of sense and I can agree with that.

But there is still tricky aspects I think. I'd say in general since the Enlightenment there were growing sentiments against slavery. It wasn't too long after 1779 that most of Europe abolished slavery, certainly within the lifetimes of the younger framers of the Constitution. So abolitionist ideas were certainly out there.

Which leads to the question: when does a known moral belief transition from a minority belief that can't be used to judge leaders into a general social norm that is used to judge leaders? I guess for slavery would become:
in what era does it become okay to call slave owning politicians immoral based on violated social norms? John C Calhoun (1820s-40s)? Or only after the Civil War?

 

[MTF]

But there is still tricky aspects I think. I'd say in general since the Enlightenment there were growing sentiments against slavery. It wasn't too long after 1779 that most of Europe abolished slavery, certainly within the lifetimes of the younger framers of the Constitution. So abolitionist ideas were certainly out there.

Which leads to the question: when does a known moral belief transition from a minority belief that can't be used to judge leaders into a general social norm that is used to judge leaders? I guess for slavery would become:
in what era does it become okay to call slave owning politicians immoral based on violated social norms? John C Calhoun (1820s-40s)? Or only after the Civil War?

I know that the timeframe on the particular example of the US founders and slavery is particularly tight, and not the clearest example. But even if they were pro-slavery and therefore a significant stain on their character, to me that's not the end of the judgement as others have suggested. I try to look at the whole body of their lives and work, and in their cases there's a lot of positives to offset. Also remembering that immoral people can end up doing good, and moral people can end up doing harm. It's always complicated.

 

[Eboue]

I know that the timeframe on the particular example of the US founders and slavery is particularly tight, and not the clearest example. But even if they were pro-slavery and therefore a significant stain on their character, to me that's not the end of the judgement as others have suggested. I try to look at the whole body of their lives and work, and in their cases there's a lot of positives to offset. Also remembering that immoral people can end up doing good, and moral people can end up doing harm. It's always complicated.

But theres no positive that can offset owning another person. They might have done other good things but when you total it all up, no one who owns slaves can be a good person.

 

[Eriku]

He changed America from a laughing stock in the Bush days to being taken seriously again where the rest of the world actually looked to America with respect, and now of course it's been completely destroyed to the point where America is once again a laughing stock because of the daily embarrassment caused by somebody who can't read or spell advocating for them in all caps.

That says more about how fickle and superficial people’s perceptions are rather than the state of the US.

 

[Sky1981]

Not much any president can do under the bipartisan circus that is the white house.

Obama can't do much even if he wants to, that's just the reality. Too many vested interest in a labyrinth of power web for one man to solve.

We're talking about a government that fabricated lies to bomb the hell out of iraq for monerary profit

 

[Aboutreika18]

His legacy is a deep love of droning Pakistani civilians. Amongst other things...

 

[UnrelatedPsuedo]

Decisions are made with respect to potential collateral damage, but there's little that can be done in certain instances where terrorists are embedded in and moving around civilian populations. There are clear ROEs on this sort of thing, although things do go wrong if there's bad intel involved and the suspect is either no longer there, mistaken identity, or there are more civilians nearby than the intel suggested. That's why these things are carefully scrutinized before they give the go ahead (and yet its still not an exact science and yes people do die). There is however a massive difference between specific targeted killings of terrorists during war time and the indiscriminate carpet bombing of civilians that took place in generations past and even more so during the great wars and in the century before that.

Do you not feel that sometimes this kind of thing is viewed through the American prism?

If you view America as world police it’s easy to forgive.

But if you view all human beings as being worth ‘1’... Drone strikes are kind of taking out far more people than they’re saving.

‘The West’ probably doesn’t push back enough.

I’m not Naive. America is generally the big swinging dick that stops the smaller hangs from acting up... but it’s certainly allowed to act without International questioning far too often.

I certainly don’t think that the level of science you’re speaking of is based on a 7.5bn percentage. It’s based on an Ametican percentage.

 

[Adebesi]

I'm not sure how you can conclude that definitively though. He still has support of 85-95% of conservatives. When I tune around the AM radio dial driving in different counties I hear a dozen different talk show hosts and their callers with full moral support of Trump especially on the immigration and the wall shutdown. In general I don't hear wildly different daily criticism of Trump among average people than the typical conservative-liberal divide on Obama and Bush before that.

I hope you're right about the GOP becoming marginalized but I haven't seen any actual evidence of this happening in my day to day life. It seems just as divided half-half as it always was.

This is why I wonder how you can just use social norms of the time to judge today.



Okay this makes a lot of sense and I can agree with that.

But there is still tricky aspects I think. I'd say in general since the Enlightenment there were growing sentiments against slavery. It wasn't too long after 1779 that most of Europe abolished slavery, certainly within the lifetimes of the younger framers of the Constitution. So abolitionist ideas were certainly out there.

Which leads to the question: when does a known moral belief transition from a minority belief that can't be used to judge leaders into a general social norm that is used to judge leaders? I guess for slavery would become:
in what era does it become okay to call slave owning politicians immoral based on violated social norms? John C Calhoun (1820s-40s)? Or only after the Civil War?

Time will tell if its a good analogy but we could see something similar with the meat industry. I'm no vegetarian, let alone vegan. But vegan ideas are out there, we all know how cruel and inhumane conditions for farmed animals are. If society reached a tipping point where such treatment was no longer seen as acceptable, either with clean, lab grown meat or people just changing their diet more fundamentally, people might look back and wonder how so many condoned the treatment of animals we turn a blind eye to today.

 

[freeurmind]

@Eboue on Obama

 

[Zarlak]

That says more about how fickle and superficial people’s perceptions are rather than the state of the US.

I think it still says a lot about the state of the country and who they're willing to put their faith in, and that it rightly reflects poorly on them when they choose somebody who can't read or write, who mocks disabled people, and who openly brags about committing sexual assault. If a mass of people are willing to elevate that person to the highest levels then it rightly affects how the rest of the world think about them as a populous. Or the supreme court nomination fiasco. What the rest of the world see is that a large part of this population don't believe that committing sexual assault for example should automatically disqualify you from a position of great importance, regardless of whatever else they might bring to the table and that's a pretty ugly statement to make in 2019. That's not really that superficial.

 

[Eriku]

I think it still says a lot about the state of the country and who they're willing to put their faith in, and that it rightly reflects poorly on them when they choose somebody who can't read or write, who mocks disabled people, and who openly brags about committing sexual assault. If a mass of people are willing to elevate that person to the highest levels then it rightly affects how the rest of the world think about them as a populous. Or the supreme court nomination fiasco. What the rest of the world see is that a large part of this population don't believe that committing sexual assault for example should automatically disqualify you from a position of great importance, regardless of whatever else they might bring to the table and that's a pretty ugly statement to make in 2019. That's not really that superficial.

The fact that people we disillusioned enough to elect Trump tells you everything you need to know. Obama was youthful, a minority and was trumpeting change. He turned out to be just another in a long line of presidents who keep up foreign policies that foster anti-American sentiments in the middle east, the hollowing out of rights in the name of security, and not least he rewarded the bankers who fecked the world up with money that went straight into bonuses.

They went with Trump because clearly another politician wasn’t going to change shit, and now we just have to hope that real alternatives pop up and that people recognise that electing a billionaire was just a matter of removing a step between the politicians and their true constituency.

The things you mentioned are horrendous, but damn right they’re superficial considering the deeper effects caused by politics in the US. Whipping up emotions about things like this is exactly how you take the spotlight away from the bigger issues.

 

[Zarlak]

The fact that people we disillusioned enough to elect Trump tells you everything you need to know. Obama was youthful, a minority and was trumpeting change. He turned out to be just another in a long line of presidents who keep up foreign policies that foster anti-American sentiments in the middle east, the hollowing out of rights in the name of security, and not least he rewarded the bankers who fecked the world up with money that went straight into bonuses.

They went with Trump because clearly another politician wasn’t going to change shit, and now we just have to hope that real alternatives pop up and that people recognise that electing a billionaire was just a matter of removing a step between the politicians and their true constituency.

The things you mentioned are horrendous, but damn right they’re superficial considering the deeper effects caused by politics in the US. Whipping up emotions about things like this is exactly how you take the spotlight away from the bigger issues.

I don't think that many sane people would agree that desperation and lack of change is more important than taking a stand against sexual assault for example. The fact that that is not an immediate disqualification no matter what. Is a slap in the face to any progress that we've made on these issues in the last 10 years, and that's what the world sees. That those who commit the acts that we go around saying are abhorrent are instead celebrated in America and elevated to positions of great power, ruling on the supreme court for example. Mental gymnastics to reconcile something so that you don't appear to be a bad person to others when the reality is the populous pushing the abhorrent to the side don't really care that much about the issue as much as they care about Rep vs Dem. And that says a lot about the people.

 

[Eboue]

I don't think that many sane people would agree that desperation and lack of change is more important than taking a stand against sexual assault for example. The fact that that is not an immediate disqualification no matter what. Is a slap in the face to any progress that we've made on these issues in the last 10 years, and that's what the world sees. That those who commit the acts that we go around saying are abhorrent are instead celebrated in America and elevated to positions of great power, ruling on the supreme court for example. Mental gymnastics to reconcile something so that you don't appear to be a bad person to others when the reality is the populous pushing the abhorrent to the side don't really care that much about the issue as much as they care about Rep vs Dem. And that says a lot about the people.

I mean, Hillary Clinton had a rapist (her husband) campaigning for her. And like 3 months ago she said it wasn't an abuse of power or a #metoo moment when the 49 year old president of the united states had an affair with a 22 year old intern. I don't think it was as clear of a "sexual assault vs. non-sexual assault" choice in the 2016 election as you do.

 

[fishfingers15]

It is a problem with idealogues though, no one is pure enough because nobody is ready to kill Jeff Bezos

 

[Tarrou]

Obama reminded everyone you can't really become a president without being a corporate stooge like the rest of them

if he was the person everyone hoped he was, he'd have never have got to that position in the first place

Bernie was our best bet in a long time for any significant change, like voting reforms for example, and that ship has probably sailed now

 

[Morpheus 7]

Truman was a good president.

Dropped 2 nuclear weapons on civilian's, aye he was great. Id like to see who is bad then, Jesus.

 

[altodevil]

Dropped 2 nuclear weapons on civilian's, aye he was great. Id like to see who is bad then, Jesus.

Terrible comment

 

[ErranMorad]

He was a good present. One of the best.

His biggest achievement was navigating us through the worst financial crisis since the great depression. Decisions taken during his regime are responsible for the current economic upturn. We were in whole lot of shit back in '08.

Passage of Dodd-Frank

ACA was another wonderful achievement that will eventually lead us to a single player/Universal health care system.

He was the first president who openly championed for Gay rights. He signed an executive order giving gay partners of federal employees limited benefits. DOJ under him announced not to defend DOMA. Repealed Don't ask, don't tell.

Cuba was a good step. Iran deal was another positive step he took.

Got Bin Laden.

There are many more things that I can add to the list when I am more coherent.

Being the first black president he was supposed to be a revolutionary & a messiah combined who was going to change the world. The expectation from him were too high & he was never going to live up to them. Eight 8 years is too less a time to turn the world upside down (On the good side. It's enough to destroy everything). He wasn't a benevolent dictator. He was a democratically elected leader who had to do everything within the confines of his presidency, working with an increasingly hostile majority opposition party.

We expect from too much from our presidents. It is not easy to please everyone and get stuff done in a democracy. Go work for your local council, or heck become a part of your local home owner association and see how fecking frustrating and impossible it is to get everyone on the same page and get things done. There are limitations to what one can do under a democracy. Four or Eight years are nearly not enough to fully implement your vision. That is why it is important to have a continuity of leadership.