What other reason is there? He's one of the best presidents we've ever had as far as getting things done.
I've never heard a reason better than "He's a mauslem" or "He's an Arab". Even if he was...so WHAT?

His race and name doesn't bother me, nor what political organization he chooses to align himself with - plus, I'd rather have a president that doesn't seem likely to keel over any moment due to some strange illness (McCain always looks like he's about to die, IDK if that's just me). People that call him Muslim are probably just doing it for to get a response out of you... doesn't who aren't, well, I wont comment on them.

As for "getting things done"... I thought everyone complains that he wasn't getting things done, and it's the republicans' fault (which is probably true)?
Regardless, he's certainly done alot, but not all of the things he has done were good, in my opinion. On the other hand, some of his accomplishments were. He's done a mixed bag of things I care about, and things I distinctly don't like. He gets the things done that you want. He doesn't get the things done that I want. Hence why we have a conflict. It's impossible for him to get the things done that everyone in the US wants, since we all have contradictory objectives.

Which is why I don't want him as president: alot the views he supports are a complete 180 degree opposite of the views I support. He's against what I'm for, and he's for what I'm against. A sane, reasonable, logical, understandable, clear, and concise reason why I, and millions of others, don't support him. Your views (and the views of the millions of people who do support him) may line up with his, but mine don't - which is why you support him, and I do not support him. Alot of republican views I don't agree with either. I don't call myself a republican or a democrat, but it so happens that more republican views line up with mine than democrat views - for you it's vice-versa. You support those who support the views you like, I support those who support the views I like. If he was a white, and had a name like "Bob", I still wouldn't agree with his views.

There; now you've heard a reason better than "He's an arab".

He's simply not capable of making sound financial decisions. I applaud his social efforts, but if there is anything our country needs right now, it's a business leader - not a social leader (which is all that Obama is). Obama is totally disconnected from the national and global business world - Suzy from the block might be able to feed her 8 illegitimate kids without going to work because she has a back brace, but meanwhile our businesses and workforce are crumbling, and our debt has already reached the "oh shit" zone.

We need to cut social and entitlement programs, quit supporting the economy with debt spending, put our foot down for fair global markets (China!), and restore confidence in our national economy. Social well being exists only with economic well being. What Obama promotes is a sheep nanny-state, when we need to promote a self-reliance business-shark state.

I'm voting for Donald Trump

...

That sounded generic. "We disagree about things" basically sums up everything you said.

Speaking about the video I can't stand to listen to political rhetoric. I think this is what puts me off to politics so much. Skimming through the video I heard references to Lincoln, FDR, Railroads, Star Trek. I prefer people that are more direct in speaking. Stuff like "We've done X" and "We're doing Y" and done. Also I don't care about wireless internet. I care about fiber to the home. Everywhere.

(Oh and I'm from Michigan. He was at my university like last year. Must like Michigan).

I applaud his social efforts, but if there is anything our country needs right now, it's a business leader - not a social leader (which is all that Obama is).

Nonsense. What your country needs is somebody who understands macroeconomics. Business people might be good at micro (though not necessarily), but leading an entire economy, and a monetarily sovereign one at that, requires a different kind of thinking. It's pretty clear that Obama doesn't have that either, but then I don't think any of the relevant figures really gets it.

For some reason, the title of this thread reminds of that ST:TNG episode 'Darmok':

President Obama in Marquette. Shaka, when the Wall Street fell. Egypt, its revolt successful. Wireless, all our networks...

I read alot of the comments that were related to this video, and all of them seem negative[/quote]
They are still way better than youtube ones.

What other reason is there? He's one of the best presidents we've ever had as far as getting things done.

I strongly disagree.

I would't even put him in the top ten. He has accomplished very little compared to others like Lincoln, Eisenhower, Truman, Jefferson, Madison, FDR, Teddy Roosevelt, Wilson, and other notables.


I'd put him as roughly "on par" with the other resent presidents since at this point in his presidency. I'd put the current and past few presents in the "mostly average" level when compared to the others who held the job. Are the current round of US Presidents great figures? Certainly. But comparing their accomplishments against those of other great figures in history? They're not so impressive by comparison.

Well If one considers Bush as not-a-president-at-all then yeah, Clinton made a much better job than Obama for sure...

[quote name='Chris Reynolds' timestamp='1297810858' post='4774705']
I applaud his social efforts, but if there is anything our country needs right now, it's a business leader - not a social leader (which is all that Obama is).

Nonsense. What your country needs is somebody who understands macroeconomics. Business people might be good at micro (though not necessarily), but leading an entire economy, and a monetarily sovereign one at that, requires a different kind of thinking. It's pretty clear that Obama doesn't have that either, but then I don't think any of the relevant figures really gets it.
[/quote]

I think you took "business leader" too literally. I think Chris just meant someone who was economically minded.

[quote name='Chris Reynolds' timestamp='1297796354' post='4774576']

[color="#CCCCCC"]He is black, democrat and has Arab names. Who cares what he says or what he does for his nation?

Absolutely hilarious you still think that that's why people don't like him.
[/quote]


What other reason is there? He's one of the best presidents we've ever had as far as getting things done.

I've never heard a reason better than "He's a mauslem" or "He's an Arab". Even if he was...so WHAT?
[/quote]
He also has a habit of blowing huge amounts of money to get out of a recession. So, who is going to pay for that? Someone will have to pay. You can't spend money that isn't yours and not have consequences. He also has a different position than I do on a few issues.

He has done a reasonably decent job, though. He just seems a little trigger happy with the money gun.

[quote name='Prefect' timestamp='1297813160' post='4774711']
[quote name='Chris Reynolds' timestamp='1297810858' post='4774705']
I applaud his social efforts, but if there is anything our country needs right now, it's a business leader - not a social leader (which is all that Obama is).

Nonsense. What your country needs is somebody who understands macroeconomics. Business people might be good at micro (though not necessarily), but leading an entire economy, and a monetarily sovereign one at that, requires a different kind of thinking. It's pretty clear that Obama doesn't have that either, but then I don't think any of the relevant figures really gets it.
[/quote]

I think you took "business leader" too literally. I think Chris just meant someone who was economically minded.
[/quote]
No, I didn't. There is a crucial difference between the understanding that is given by microeconomics and macroeconomics. Being "economically minded", without a further qualification as to which kind of economics one is minded in, says nothing about your qualifications for economic policy. In fact, I would go so far as to say that the main problem in current political debates is that people (politicians, journalists, and regular Joes alike) are applying only microeconomic concepts to their thinking about how the economy should be run by the government. This is natural, because microeconomic thinking is more in line with our everyday experiences and thus our intuition.

For example: People like you and I (or "business leaders") make the experience that when you cut wasteful spending, you will be able to affect your balance in the intended way: your spending will be reduced, your income will remain the same. This is microeconomic thinking, and it does not apply to an organization of the scale of a government. Whenever a government cuts spending, even spending that is considered wasteful across the political spectrum, a drop in the government's income is a possible side-effect, because the government's income comes from tax revenue, which comes from the income of businesses and people, which comes from spending, which - at least partially - comes from government spending. In other words, any attempt of the US government to balance its budget may be (and in the current situation is like to be) self-defeating. This is a very basic lesson of macroeconomics, but it doesn't seem to figure in the current political debate.

Another example: People like you and I (or "business leaders") must raise money somehow before we can spend it, either from income (wage or profit from capital we own) or from running down savings or, ultimately, from debt. The reason we work for money is so that we may spend that money later. This is microeconomic thinking, and it does not apply to the US government, which is sovereign in its own currency. The US government must raise taxes, but the reason it must do so is to ensure the value of its currency. Consequently, the considerations for how much it should tax are different from our own personal considerations for how much income we need. For you and I, it is clear that we must always raise at least as much money (or run down from savings) as we want to spend. For the US government, the situation is more complicated, and depends highly on the decisions of the non-government sector. In general, the US government will have to tax less than it spends even in the long run if it wants the economy to be at full employment.

These are the most important differences as far as the current political debates are concerned. To get more background on this, you may want to read up on sectoral balances or this series on sustainable fiscal policy: #1, #2, #3

So, again, "business leader" is the inappropriate qualification for determining the economic policy of a country because it implies a microeconomic mind, where it's macroeconomic thinking that you really need.