Republicans only: what was so bad about Obama?

[Fuzzy Bear]

His very left-wing social agenda, some of which was defeated in courts.  But, he was probably the first president who fully embraced the idea of America as a post-Christian nation and went all-in on secular, left-wing values.

America never was a Christian nation

That's the principle that we disagree on.  I don't think the government should force adherence to any religion, but our laws should absolutely have a basis in Christian values.

How profoundly against the letter and spirit of the founding fathers ideals.

"Separation of church and state" is not in the Constitution.  The first amendment only protects religion from government's interference, but does not protect the government from religion's influence.  No faithful Christian would be willing to say "Jesus, look away" when they were voting on a piece of legislation.  Christians must take Christ with them everywhere they go.

So surely you would not protest if a Muslim politician wanted to impose Sharia Law using the same rationale?

I would certainly protest the idea that electing someone who believed that would be good for the preservation of individual liberties.

As would the deist Founding Fathers if someone wanted Christianity enshrined into law.

Deism amongst the Founding Fathers is overstated.

The first sentence of the first amendment literally says we cannot base our laws based on any religion .

The wording of the First Amendment's Establishment Clause was designed to prevent America from having an "official denomination" and to prevent some future Executive from establishing some kind of Church of America in the vein that Henry VIII established the Church of England.  It did not mean that Christian motivation could not be the basis of law and public policy.

[Vern]

ObamaCare....

[Blue3]

Treaty of Tripoli (negotiators appointed by Washington, ratified unanimously by Senate, signed by Adams):

Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen (Muslims); and as the said States never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan (Mohammedan) nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.

And let's not forget that Jefferson, the writer of the Declaration of the Independence, was a deist who literally tried to rewrite the Gospels while eliminating God (including eliminating the Resurrection, Jesus's miracles, and any mention of Jesus being divine).

[100% pro-life no matter what]

His very left-wing social agenda, some of which was defeated in courts.  But, he was probably the first president who fully embraced the idea of America as a post-Christian nation and went all-in on secular, left-wing values.

America never was a Christian nation

That's the principle that we disagree on.  I don't think the government should force adherence to any religion, but our laws should absolutely have a basis in Christian values.

How profoundly against the letter and spirit of the founding fathers ideals.

"Separation of church and state" is not in the Constitution.  The first amendment only protects religion from government's interference, but does not protect the government from religion's influence.  No faithful Christian would be willing to say "Jesus, look away" when they were voting on a piece of legislation.  Christians must take Christ with them everywhere they go.

So surely you would not protest if a Muslim politician wanted to impose Sharia Law using the same rationale?

I would certainly protest the idea that electing someone who believed that would be good for the preservation of individual liberties.

As would the deist Founding Fathers if someone wanted Christianity enshrined into law.

Deism amongst the Founding Fathers is overstated.

The first sentence of the first amendment literally says we cannot base our laws based on any religion .

No, it doesn't.  Establishing a state religion and forcing people to follow it is very different from politicians consulting their faith when deciding right from wrong.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

His very left-wing social agenda, some of which was defeated in courts.  But, he was probably the first president who fully embraced the idea of America as a post-Christian nation and went all-in on secular, left-wing values.

America never was a Christian nation

That's the principle that we disagree on.  I don't think the government should force adherence to any religion, but our laws should absolutely have a basis in Christian values.

How profoundly against the letter and spirit of the founding fathers ideals.

"Separation of church and state" is not in the Constitution.  The first amendment only protects religion from government's interference, but does not protect the government from religion's influence.  No faithful Christian would be willing to say "Jesus, look away" when they were voting on a piece of legislation.  Christians must take Christ with them everywhere they go.

So surely you would not protest if a Muslim politician wanted to impose Sharia Law using the same rationale?

I would certainly protest the idea that electing someone who believed that would be good for the preservation of individual liberties.

As would the deist Founding Fathers if someone wanted Christianity enshrined into law.

Deism amongst the Founding Fathers is overstated.

The first sentence of the first amendment literally says we cannot base our laws based on any religion .

No, it doesn't.  Establishing a state religion and forcing people to follow it is very different from politicians consulting their faith when deciding right from wrong.

[Badger]

His very left-wing social agenda, some of which was defeated in courts.  But, he was probably the first president who fully embraced the idea of America as a post-Christian nation and went all-in on secular, left-wing values.

America never was a Christian nation

But we were, in my lifetime, a Christian-IZED nation.  A nation where the Christian influence of our Founding Fathers wes taught in schools and celebrated.  Where the Church, and the idea of God were held by people with a degree of reverance, even if they were not religious.  Where the Ten Commandments were the standard for public morailty, even among unbelievers.  Where, despite differences, when American prayed, they were, for the most part, praying to the same God.

Why it surprises people that we, as a nation, have experienced more disunity as we become less Christianized is a mystery to me.  That we, as a people, prayed to the same God was a unifying force.  Those days are gone, and they are not likely to come back, short of a miracle of God, Himself.  But let's not kid ourselves; the secularism today that is a secularism steeped in open hostility to the idea of a God that is, indeed, an Authority Figure, has not always been the dominant moral force in our society.  I'm old enough to remember when it wasn't.

Fuzzy. I hate to break it to you , but we never, ever, " all prayed to the same God". Or even prayed at all. The reality is infinitely more complex than that, and far less saccharin than your misplaced nostalgia for your personal sects religious hegemony over the public sphere.

Maybe not 100%, but America, for the most part, believed in Jehovah God (the God of the Bible) as God overwhelmingly for most of our history.  That's not to say that there weren't theological differences, but we prayed to the same God.  This includes Jews, who, while not (for the most part) believers in Jesus Christ as the Messiah, believe in God the Father as being the same personage as Christians do.

I was alive during this period.  Please don't condescend to the level of telling me what America was like at a time when I was alive and you were not.  I grew up and watched this change before my eyes.

Jews disagree with you vehement Lee as far as being part of the Big Happy Family judeo Christian culture that you imagine. That whole term judeo Christian only became hip among fundamentalist seeking to reassert their control over the political sphere when it no longer became politically expedient to demonize Jews. That went up through the 1960s, not the 1160s.

Iirc, you're only about 10 years older than me. I will gladly take extensively reading on the subject over your extremely biased anecdotal personal experience. You've already demonstrated to view the experience through Christ colored glasses.

[Badger]

His very left-wing social agenda, some of which was defeated in courts.  But, he was probably the first president who fully embraced the idea of America as a post-Christian nation and went all-in on secular, left-wing values.

America never was a Christian nation

That's the principle that we disagree on.  I don't think the government should force adherence to any religion, but our laws should absolutely have a basis in Christian values.

How profoundly against the letter and spirit of the founding fathers ideals.

"Separation of church and state" is not in the Constitution.  The first amendment only protects religion from government's interference, but does not protect the government from religion's influence.  No faithful Christian would be willing to say "Jesus, look away" when they were voting on a piece of legislation.  Christians must take Christ with them everywhere they go.

So surely you would not protest if a Muslim politician wanted to impose Sharia Law using the same rationale?

I would certainly protest the idea that electing someone who believed that would be good for the preservation of individual liberties.

As would the deist Founding Fathers if someone wanted Christianity enshrined into law.

Deism amongst the Founding Fathers is overstated.

That one tenth as much as they're supposed desire to found a specifically Christian Nation is overstated.

We get it. You want one nation, Under a very specific God.

[TPIG]

Barack Obama's Presidency was failure.

On the domestic front, his anti-growth approach to the economy, which consisted of increased taxes and unchaining regulatory agencies ensured that his presidency would be one marked by anemic economic growth. The fact that his economic recovery after the Great Recession was the weakest in 70 years is a testament to this fact. His largest achievement, Obamacare, has been a failure. From causing millions of Americans to lose their insurance, to the economically harmful employer mandate/regressive individual mandate, and skyrocketing healthcare costs, Obamacare failed to improve the American healthcare system.

On the international stage, from ignoring the threat of Russia, to putting distance between us and Israel, and engaging in the ineffective/dangerous Iranian Nuclear Deal, Obama's approach to foreign policy was a record of weakness and naivete.

[Mr. Smith]

ObamaCare....

Which was a Republican idea from the start, with Gingrich himself backing it all the way up until the bluff was called!

[darklordoftech]

The idea that the Obama era was "un-Christian" or "made America less Christian" baffles me. Women stopped baring their midriffs, teen smoking rates fell to a record low, Obama never had a sex scandal, etc.

[Landslide Lyndon]

All these elaborate posts and "thoughtful" analysis when the reality is much simpler.

Republicans hated Obama because they think that they have a God-given monopoly on power and view every Democratic president as an illegitimate usurper.

Oh, and did I mention that he was black?

[Sir Mohamed]

The idea that the Obama era was "un-Christian" or "made America less Christian" baffles me. Women stopped baring their midriffs, teen smoking rates fell to a record low, Obama never had a sex scandal, etc.

Absolutely. GOP would have impeached him in the House if he paid off pornstars before the election to pay their silence. The extreme double standard and lack of principals by the congressional GOP and its hard-right faction is obvious here.

If anything was not Christian, it was a huge number of deportations, something that the GOP hammered him for being not though enough. This is a political question, but helping people in need is something I, as not very religious Muslim, associate with Christianity. But the GOP has no record in this field either. See cutting food stamps instead of reckless defense spending.

[Statilius the Epicurean]

Why it surprises people that we, as a nation, have experienced more disunity as we become less Christianized is a mystery to me.  That we, as a people, prayed to the same God was a unifying force.  Those days are gone, and they are not likely to come back, short of a miracle of God, Himself.  But let's not kid ourselves; the secularism today that is a secularism steeped in open hostility to the idea of a God that is, indeed, an Authority Figure, has not always been the dominant moral force in our society.  I'm old enough to remember when it wasn't.

Hang on, Americans 50-60 years ago "prayed to the same God" while they worshipped in segregated churches being firebombed by the KKK and had their Reverends assassinated by gunmen. Like, is America less united today than it was in the more Christian 60s when there were frequent race riots and domestic terrorist groups running around? Idk, a graph like this



doesn't exactly say to me that everyone worshipping the same God is how you bring about American national reconcillation.

[AudmanOut]

Because he was/is a black Muslim who was gonna come to take your guns of course.

[Fuzzy Bear]

His very left-wing social agenda, some of which was defeated in courts.  But, he was probably the first president who fully embraced the idea of America as a post-Christian nation and went all-in on secular, left-wing values.

America never was a Christian nation

That's the principle that we disagree on.  I don't think the government should force adherence to any religion, but our laws should absolutely have a basis in Christian values.

How profoundly against the letter and spirit of the founding fathers ideals.

"Separation of church and state" is not in the Constitution.  The first amendment only protects religion from government's interference, but does not protect the government from religion's influence.  No faithful Christian would be willing to say "Jesus, look away" when they were voting on a piece of legislation.  Christians must take Christ with them everywhere they go.

So surely you would not protest if a Muslim politician wanted to impose Sharia Law using the same rationale?

I would certainly protest the idea that electing someone who believed that would be good for the preservation of individual liberties.

As would the deist Founding Fathers if someone wanted Christianity enshrined into law.

Deism amongst the Founding Fathers is overstated.

That one tenth as much as they're supposed desire to found a specifically Christian Nation is overstated.

We get it. You want one nation, Under a very specific God.

Their goal was NOT to found a theocracy, although some of the founders of some of the colonies got carried away with that idea at times.  (Overbearing theocracy is why Roger Williams fled Massachusetts Bay colony and founded Rhode Island and Providence Plantations.)

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

One thing as a historical note, I would be very hesitant to take Jefferson's views on religion and apply them across the board to the founders as a matter of course.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Barack Obama's Presidency was failure.

On the domestic front, his anti-growth approach to the economy, which consisted of increased taxes and unchaining regulatory agencies ensured that his presidency would be one marked by anemic economic growth. The fact that his economic recovery after the Great Recession was the weakest in 70 years is a testament to this fact. His largest achievement, Obamacare, has been a failure. From causing millions of Americans to lose their insurance, to the economically harmful employer mandate/regressive individual mandate, and skyrocketing healthcare costs, Obamacare failed to improve the American healthcare system.

On the international stage, from ignoring the threat of Russia, to putting distance between us and Israel, and engaging in the ineffective/dangerous Iranian Nuclear Deal, Obama's approach to foreign policy was a record of weakness and naivete.

I do find this an unfairly harsh judgement.

Obama took office in the wake of something that was more than just a recession; it was an economic event that caused longstanding structural damage to our economy that was caused, unquestionably, by Republican economic policies that sought to create a "boom" economy that was fueled by inflated housing values, and not by real growth in the economy.  It was Republican policies that caused housing values in America to soar far out of proportion to what working people actually earned; a certain amount of the housing crash was an inevitable correction that the Republican economic policymakers of the Bush 43 administration should have known would occur.  

I personally believe that the main problem with Obama's Stimulus policies was that they didn't go far enough.  In that regard, the GOP is to blame, because they did not want Obama to succeed.  They wanted more of the same that created the problem.  If the Democrats have become a party which worship secularism, the GOP has become a party that worships capitalism to the point of Social Darwinism.

The insurance that Obamacare caused people to use was, for the most part, junk insurance with inadequate coverage; something that people could present to get them into the hospital in a pinch, only to hear soon afterward that they aren't covered.  The GOP has long governed America in a manner where they have been unconcerned for the masses without health insurance, or who were plunged in to medical bankruptcy due to catastrophic illness; they have opposed any and all proposals that included universal coverage.  And they have refused to consider legislation designed to fix the flaws in Obamacare; they WANTED it to fail and WORKED for it to fail.  And they have no plan that will, indeed, ensure healthcare access to all that will not bankrupt people.  (I thought, at one time, that Trump actually had some ideas that would fix the flaws in Obamacare, but he's apparently cast his lot making deals with the Freedom Caucus, which is not what I had in mind when I voted for him.)  

Obama had his flaws.  His foreign policy failed to extract us from any number of foolish foreign entanglements, and some of his accomplishments don't look as good in hindsight (although the Iran Nuclear Deal WAS a positive on balance).  And he wrecked the Democratic Party; the Clinton's takeover of the party apparatus was accomplished, in part, because of Obama's neglect of the party, itself.  I certainly didn't enjoy the social liberalism, not at all.  But the GOP Congress dealt with him with ill will, unconcerned for the common weal.  Their whole goal was to work to see him fail, and they were pretty open and honest about that.  I abhor "The Resistance" Congress to Trump, and I view the concept as un-American, but a certain amount of that is a response to "The Obstruction" that the GOP presented Obama.  There was never ANY good will extended Obama by Republcans.  None at all.  They wanted him to fail so they could get back in power, and they didn't really hide it.  In that regard, Obama may have been better off being more like Trump; giving more crap to his opponents that he got from them.  

I suppose my assessment of Obama is mixed because of my mixed outlook (economic liberal, social conservative) on issues.  He's not Mount Rushmore material, but the harsh judgements on his Presidency by Republicans are purely partisan.  Compromise and achievement on the part of Republicans during the Obama years would have been wonderful for America, both practically and socially, but Republicans were no better at putting the whole of America ahead of partisanship then than Democrats are now.

[Badger]

Barack Obama's Presidency was failure.

On the domestic front, his anti-growth approach to the economy, which consisted of increased taxes and unchaining regulatory agencies ensured that his presidency would be one marked by anemic economic growth. The fact that his economic recovery after the Great Recession was the weakest in 70 years is a testament to this fact. His largest achievement, Obamacare, has been a failure. From causing millions of Americans to lose their insurance, to the economically harmful employer mandate/regressive individual mandate, and skyrocketing healthcare costs, Obamacare failed to improve the American healthcare system.

On the international stage, from ignoring the threat of Russia, to putting distance between us and Israel, and engaging in the ineffective/dangerous Iranian Nuclear Deal, Obama's approach to foreign policy was a record of weakness and naivete.

I do find this an unfairly harsh judgement.

Obama took office in the wake of something that was more than just a recession; it was an economic event that caused longstanding structural damage to our economy that was caused, unquestionably, by Republican economic policies that sought to create a "boom" economy that was fueled by inflated housing values, and not by real growth in the economy.  It was Republican policies that caused housing values in America to soar far out of proportion to what working people actually earned; a certain amount of the housing crash was an inevitable correction that the Republican economic policymakers of the Bush 43 administration should have known would occur.  

I personally believe that the main problem with Obama's Stimulus policies was that they didn't go far enough.  In that regard, the GOP is to blame, because they did not want Obama to succeed.  They wanted more of the same that created the problem.  If the Democrats have become a party which worship secularism, the GOP has become a party that worships capitalism to the point of Social Darwinism.

The insurance that Obamacare caused people to use was, for the most part, junk insurance with inadequate coverage; something that people could present to get them into the hospital in a pinch, only to hear soon afterward that they aren't covered.  The GOP has long governed America in a manner where they have been unconcerned for the masses without health insurance, or who were plunged in to medical bankruptcy due to catastrophic illness; they have opposed any and all proposals that included universal coverage.  And they have refused to consider legislation designed to fix the flaws in Obamacare; they WANTED it to fail and WORKED for it to fail.  And they have no plan that will, indeed, ensure healthcare access to all that will not bankrupt people.  (I thought, at one time, that Trump actually had some ideas that would fix the flaws in Obamacare, but he's apparently cast his lot making deals with the Freedom Caucus, which is not what I had in mind when I voted for him.)  

Obama had his flaws.  His foreign policy failed to extract us from any number of foolish foreign entanglements, and some of his accomplishments don't look as good in hindsight (although the Iran Nuclear Deal WAS a positive on balance).  And he wrecked the Democratic Party; the Clinton's takeover of the party apparatus was accomplished, in part, because of Obama's neglect of the party, itself.  I certainly didn't enjoy the social liberalism, not at all.  But the GOP Congress dealt with him with ill will, unconcerned for the common weal.  Their whole goal was to work to see him fail, and they were pretty open and honest about that.  I abhor "The Resistance" Congress to Trump, and I view the concept as un-American, but a certain amount of that is a response to "The Obstruction" that the GOP presented Obama.  There was never ANY good will extended Obama by Republcans.  None at all.  They wanted him to fail so they could get back in power, and they didn't really hide it.  In that regard, Obama may have been better off being more like Trump; giving more crap to his opponents that he got from them.  

I suppose my assessment of Obama is mixed because of my mixed outlook (economic liberal, social conservative) on issues.  He's not Mount Rushmore material, but the harsh judgements on his Presidency by Republicans are purely partisan.  Compromise and achievement on the part of Republicans during the Obama years would have been wonderful for America, both practically and socially, but Republicans were no better at putting the whole of America ahead of partisanship then than Democrats are now.

Wish old Atlas allowed me to like posts

[Slander and/or Libel]

Barack Obama's Presidency was failure.

On the domestic front, his anti-growth approach to the economy, which consisted of increased taxes and unchaining regulatory agencies ensured that his presidency would be one marked by anemic economic growth. The fact that his economic recovery after the Great Recession was the weakest in 70 years is a testament to this fact. His largest achievement, Obamacare, has been a failure. From causing millions of Americans to lose their insurance, to the economically harmful employer mandate/regressive individual mandate, and skyrocketing healthcare costs, Obamacare failed to improve the American healthcare system.

On the international stage, from ignoring the threat of Russia, to putting distance between us and Israel, and engaging in the ineffective/dangerous Iranian Nuclear Deal, Obama's approach to foreign policy was a record of weakness and naivete.

I do find this an unfairly harsh judgement.

Obama took office in the wake of something that was more than just a recession; it was an economic event that caused longstanding structural damage to our economy that was caused, unquestionably, by Republican economic policies that sought to create a "boom" economy that was fueled by inflated housing values, and not by real growth in the economy.  It was Republican policies that caused housing values in America to soar far out of proportion to what working people actually earned; a certain amount of the housing crash was an inevitable correction that the Republican economic policymakers of the Bush 43 administration should have known would occur. 

I personally believe that the main problem with Obama's Stimulus policies was that they didn't go far enough.  In that regard, the GOP is to blame, because they did not want Obama to succeed.  They wanted more of the same that created the problem.  If the Democrats have become a party which worship secularism, the GOP has become a party that worships capitalism to the point of Social Darwinism.

The insurance that Obamacare caused people to use was, for the most part, junk insurance with inadequate coverage; something that people could present to get them into the hospital in a pinch, only to hear soon afterward that they aren't covered.  The GOP has long governed America in a manner where they have been unconcerned for the masses without health insurance, or who were plunged in to medical bankruptcy due to catastrophic illness; they have opposed any and all proposals that included universal coverage.  And they have refused to consider legislation designed to fix the flaws in Obamacare; they WANTED it to fail and WORKED for it to fail.  And they have no plan that will, indeed, ensure healthcare access to all that will not bankrupt people.  (I thought, at one time, that Trump actually had some ideas that would fix the flaws in Obamacare, but he's apparently cast his lot making deals with the Freedom Caucus, which is not what I had in mind when I voted for him.) 

Obama had his flaws.  His foreign policy failed to extract us from any number of foolish foreign entanglements, and some of his accomplishments don't look as good in hindsight (although the Iran Nuclear Deal WAS a positive on balance).  And he wrecked the Democratic Party; the Clinton's takeover of the party apparatus was accomplished, in part, because of Obama's neglect of the party, itself.  I certainly didn't enjoy the social liberalism, not at all.  But the GOP Congress dealt with him with ill will, unconcerned for the common weal.  Their whole goal was to work to see him fail, and they were pretty open and honest about that.  I abhor "The Resistance" Congress to Trump, and I view the concept as un-American, but a certain amount of that is a response to "The Obstruction" that the GOP presented Obama.  There was never ANY good will extended Obama by Republcans.  None at all.  They wanted him to fail so they could get back in power, and they didn't really hide it.  In that regard, Obama may have been better off being more like Trump; giving more crap to his opponents that he got from them. 

I suppose my assessment of Obama is mixed because of my mixed outlook (economic liberal, social conservative) on issues.  He's not Mount Rushmore material, but the harsh judgements on his Presidency by Republicans are purely partisan.  Compromise and achievement on the part of Republicans during the Obama years would have been wonderful for America, both practically and socially, but Republicans were no better at putting the whole of America ahead of partisanship then than Democrats are now.

You and I have had our disagreements, some sharp, so I wanted to make sure to give credit where credit is due: I agree almost completely with the bolded sections above. The only caveat I would make is that while Obamacare policies sometimes give inadequate coverage, I think they largely either give less inadequate coverage than the system that was in place before the ACA, or give at least some (though not enough) benefits to people who previously couldn't get any coverage at all. I think the ACA is extremely flawed, but also genuinely helps people on balance, and represents pretty much the maximal good that could be accomplished at the time. If the veto point dems hadn't insisted on making the law worse, or any Republicans had decided to cooperate constructively, it could have been much better.

[Slander and/or Libel]

Why should Republicans get have all the fun?

Obama presided over a slow economic recovery. People lived through nearly a decade of higher poverty and unemployment than they what they had been accustomed to previously. Anyone transitioning between occupations or graduating from school had a rougher time moving into a new career. Why should they have been happy with that?

He held no one to account for the invasion of Iraq, the financial crisis, or the horrific federal response to Hurricane Katrina.

He repeatedly sought reconciliation with Republicans who showed no interest in working with him. His politics were a poor fit for the time, and a disaster for most of his party, because they sacrificed teamwork and political effectiveness for Obama’s personal popularity - which remains extremely high even as he floats from one billionaire-funded junket to another as he enjoys his post-presidential ascent into the global upper class.

He passed a health care bill that violated virtually every major promise that he had made on the subject while campaigning, from his opposition to the individual mandate, to his pledge that the typical family would see health care costs decrease, to “if you like your insurance, you can keep it.” Even the goal of truly universal coverage was, at best, a mirage, and, at worst, an enormous lie.

He failed to remove US troops from Iraq and Afghanistan and committed the country to more foreign conflicts – especially once his administration realized how much drone warfare relieved domestic political pressure. If there is such a thing as an “Obama doctrine,” it ought to be that the political cost of foreign civilian casualties can be kept extremely low if members of the US military are out of reach of physical harm.

He chose his priorities poorly. Health care took precedence when his focus should have been on economic recovery and fixing the financial system that caused the 2008 crisis. Austerity took priority when his focus should have been on rising rates of poverty and underemployment. He wanted to cut Social Security and Medicare when he should have been talking about expanding those programs. He did nothing meaningful to relieve the cost burden of housing, education, or health care.  His climate change policy was a bad joke – a Potemkin Village of pledges, benchmarks, and facile rhetoric meant to achieve nothing but the appearance of seriousness in the face of a problem that mainstream politicians have no idea how to address.

That’s a start, anyway.

I'm not just trying to play defense here, but how much of that stuff represents Obama's policy preferences, and how much represents what he could accomplish given the lay of the land in Congress, especially after 2010? The prioritization of health care was largely his choice, but it's not clear to me that Congress had an appetite for more stimulus or more financial reform than they passed, even if it wasn't enough. I'm not sure how/if Obama could have done more (with the exception, of course, of holding the heads of the institutions that caused the crisis accountable, to prevent the moral hazard in the first place).

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

I'm not just trying to play defense here, but how much of that stuff represents Obama's policy preferences, and how much represents what he could accomplish given the lay of the land in Congress, especially after 2010? The prioritization of health care was largely his choice, but it's not clear to me that Congress had an appetite for more stimulus or more financial reform than they passed, even if it wasn't enough. I'm not sure how/if Obama could have done more (with the exception, of course, of holding the heads of the institutions that caused the crisis accountable, to prevent the moral hazard in the first place).

Everything outlined here was a matter of choice, not necessity. Look at who Obama appointed, his executive choices, his major addresses, and his general rhetoric.

Of course there's no guarantee that legislative outcomes would have improved. That's impossible to demonstrate (and therefore always the first choice of objection for his defenders). But decisions like appointing Tim Geithner and Larry Summers, starting a drone war in the Arabian peninsula, or devoting much of his second term to promoting an unpopular international trade agreement were all just that: His decisions.

pushing for the TPP was the right thing and still is the right thing. Containing China and its illiberal and bullying tendencies is important for the future of the free world.

[Flyersfan232]

His very left-wing social agenda, some of which was defeated in courts.  But, he was probably the first president who fully embraced the idea of America as a post-Christian nation and went all-in on secular, left-wing values.

America never was a Christian nation

That's the principle that we disagree on.  I don't think the government should force adherence to any religion, but our laws should absolutely have a basis in Christian values.

How profoundly against the letter and spirit of the founding fathers ideals.

"Separation of church and state" is not in the Constitution.  The first amendment only protects religion from government's interference, but does not protect the government from religion's influence.  No faithful Christian would be willing to say "Jesus, look away" when they were voting on a piece of legislation.  Christians must take Christ with them everywhere they go.

So surely you would not protest if a Muslim politician wanted to impose Sharia Law using the same rationale?

I would certainly protest the idea that electing someone who believed that would be good for the preservation of individual liberties.

didnt you say you would voe for sherrod brown some time ago?

[Flyersfan232]

Most of the problems I had with him pertained to some of his policies. I had no problem whatsoever with him as a person.

same but his character did piss me me off (His smugness)

[Karpatsky]

His very left-wing social agenda, some of which was defeated in courts.  But, he was probably the first president who fully embraced the idea of America as a post-Christian nation and went all-in on secular, left-wing values.

America never was a Christian nation

That's the principle that we disagree on.  I don't think the government should force adherence to any religion, but our laws should absolutely have a basis in Christian values.

How profoundly against the letter and spirit of the founding fathers ideals.

"Separation of church and state" is not in the Constitution.  The first amendment only protects religion from government's interference, but does not protect the government from religion's influence.  No faithful Christian would be willing to say "Jesus, look away" when they were voting on a piece of legislation.  Christians must take Christ with them everywhere they go.

So surely you would not protest if a Muslim politician wanted to impose Sharia Law using the same rationale?

I would certainly protest the idea that electing someone who believed that would be good for the preservation of individual liberties.

didnt you say you would voe for sherrod brown some time ago?

'Sherrod Brown wants to impose sharia law' is one I haven't heard before, I'll give you that.

[pbrower2a]

His very left-wing social agenda, some of which was defeated in courts.  But, he was probably the first president who fully embraced the idea of America as a post-Christian nation and went all-in on secular, left-wing values.

America never was a Christian nation

That's the principle that we disagree on.  I don't think the government should force adherence to any religion, but our laws should absolutely have a basis in Christian values.

How profoundly against the letter and spirit of the founding fathers ideals.

"Separation of church and state" is not in the Constitution.  The first amendment only protects religion from government's interference, but does not protect the government from religion's influence.  No faithful Christian would be willing to say "Jesus, look away" when they were voting on a piece of legislation.  Christians must take Christ with them everywhere they go.

It is also up to Christians to decide for themselves, ideally upon understanding what Jesus had to say, what Christianity means to them. Prosperity gospel? That isn't what I think after reading the Sermon on the Mount. I see a responsibility of Christians to give comfort and dignity to the poor.  It is essential that Christians reject anything hostile to Jesus' teachings, including intolerance against Christians (ISIS offends all sorts of religions, so Christian opposition to ISIS is liberal in nature).

Most of the dispute between liberalism and 'conservative' Christianity is on sex and gender. Many of the problems that we now face result from people lacking a moral compass.