Dosent Obama have a job to do?

[columbus]

At any rate he needs to get on that Supreme court Justice nomination...oh wait....Republicans are blocking him. Maybe they should let him do his job?

QFT!
Tom

 

[columbus]

Thing is, it's been a long time since 1908 Roosevelt era for a sitting president actively endorsing his potential successor.

There is a reason no Republicans running for POTUS want a past president "helping".
They're both named Bush and they were both disasters.
Tom

 

[JakofHearts]

Obama seems more concerned about his legacy being erased by Trump than say doing some good things for Americans before he leaves.

One example:

Spoiler

I would have thought that this was rather telling on Obama neglecting his duties (his promises) to Native Americans. Are most saying that the Standing Rock issue doesn't qualify as a priority for the president? How about out of moral decency?

 

[Quetzal]

I would have thought that this was rather telling on Obama neglecting his duties (his promises) to Native Americans. Are most saying that the Standing Rock issue doesn't qualify as a priority for the president? How about out of moral decency?

I am a bit disappointed by the silence from the White House regarding this issue. Unless there was a statement released and I missed it.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Is there any reason that couldn't be addressed after the new successer has been chosen? The transition period?

I would consider that pretty unlikely, if your successor despises everything you've done, wouldn't you? Your sworn enemy is hardly likely to be the willing protector of your legacy.

So if you want a legacy, it makes some sense to try and ensure that your successor is someone who actually values what you've accomplished.

 

[Scuba Pete]

Must you resort to ad hominems?

That's not an ad hominem. As often as that phrase is used here on RF, I would love for you guys to figure out what it really means.

 

[Smart_Guy]

Other than Obaming the Middle East?

 

[JakofHearts]

I would consider that pretty unlikely, if your successor despises everything you've done, wouldn't you? Your sworn enemy is hardly likely to be the willing protector of your legacy.

So if you want a legacy, it makes some sense to try and ensure that your successor is someone who actually values what you've accomplished.

I get that and it's probably a good reason to focus on, but I would think that a legacy was based on good things that would be able to last for all time despite foreign attempts to dismantle it. I personally don't see how Obama cannot do both, or at least openly speak about the Standing Rock issue. It is known worldwide and many are in support of the Native Americans, and my question is why is Obama doing some noticeable goose-stepping on it? He promised as long as he was in the White House they would be heard, and yet we see Obama either shifting the responsibility to the next president or is not objected to the corporates bulldozing Native American lands.

I would think that doing this would be part of Obamas legacy. People remember good things and that's what makes a legacy timeless, not fragile politics that can get overturned in a day which Obama is apparently afraid of.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

I get that and it's probably a good reason to focus on, but I would think that a legacy was based on good things that would be able to last for all time despite foreign attempts to dismantle it. I personally don't see how Obama cannot do both, or at least openly speak about the Standing Rock issue. It is known worldwide and many are in support of the Native Americans, and my question is why is Obama doing some noticeable goose-stepping on it? He promised as long as he was in the White House they would be heard, and yet we see Obama either shifting the responsibility to the next president or is not objected to the corporates bulldozing Native American lands.

I would think that doing this would be part of Obamas legacy. People remember good things and that's what makes a legacy timeless, not fragile politics that can get overturned in a day which Obama is apparently afraid of.

I confess I really don't know much about Standing Rock, although I am certainly sure that in every contentious issue
, there is not necessarily just one "right side of the argument." Otherwise, why would it be contentious.

As it happens, I have a Mohawk background (though I wasn't aware of this until I was in my 40s, brought up in Children's Aid, and so don't really identify with it). We have similar issues in Canada -- native claims to treaty lands are very often based on real treaties, signed by (and abandoned by) real governments. Grossly unfair, no doubt. Yet, would it really make the nation a lot better to boot all the present inhabitants out and turn the claimed lands back to hunter-gatherers?

In the same way, oil cannot be found everywhere, but the products made by oil (that fuel our cars, heat our homes, and so forth) are needed everywhere. And how will that be accomplished if nobody can ever build another pipeline, and rail transport is too dangerous?

Now, I grant that I don't even know what the term "sacred land" actually means. The idea itself is foreign to me, since I hold no religious beliefs, nor do I think that one place is more important than another for no other reason than that somebody special lived there, or died there.

 

[Lighthouse]

"If" Donald Trump happens to win, who thinks that he will hand the baton off and handle the transition of power peacefully?

 

[fantome profane]

"If" Donald Trump happens to win, who thinks that he will hand the baton off and handle the transition of power peacefully?

Of course he will. I have absolutely no doubt about that.

 

[Revoltingest]

I hope he gets back to his job soon,
He sure messed up traffic here today.

That guy has a carbon footprint the size of Texas!

 

[JakofHearts]

I confess I really don't know much about Standing Rock, although I am certainly sure that in every contentious issue
, there is not necessarily just one "right side of the argument." Otherwise, why would it be contentious.

As it happens, I have a Mohawk background (though I wasn't aware of this until I was in my 40s, brought up in Children's Aid, and so don't really identify with it). We have similar issues in Canada -- native claims to treaty lands are very often based on real treaties, signed by (and abandoned by) real governments. Grossly unfair, no doubt. Yet, would it really make the nation a lot better to boot all the present inhabitants out and turn the claimed lands back to hunter-gatherers?

In the same way, oil cannot be found everywhere, but the products made by oil (that fuel our cars, heat our homes, and so forth) are needed everywhere. And how will that be accomplished if nobody can ever build another pipeline, and rail transport is too dangerous?

Now, I grant that I don't even know what the term "sacred land" actually means. The idea itself is foreign to me, since I hold no religious beliefs, nor do I think that one place is more important than another for no other reason than that somebody special lived there, or died there.

I'm not really sure on what the Sioux do on their reservations, but judging by the small amount of information I've learned of them, they live a life no different than anyone else, not your supposed "hunter-gathers", lifestyle. Sure there is money to be made, but it's their land and it's directly on burial ground. Though that may not hold any importance to foreign eyes it is nonetheless their land and it is causing controversy with the silence from the White House and the lack of MSM attention. It's concerning on a number of levels, for me the protests have children there and the militarized police are getting tear gassed, and good enough reason for Obama to intervene. Hillary's campaigns over, what's he waiting for?

Economically I suppose it would be beneficial, but if Obama wants to pretend to be a friend to the Sioux in which he has no desire to help, then he shouldn't be vague about it.

 

[metis]

Economically I suppose it would be beneficial, but if Obama wants to pretend to be a friend to the Sioux in which he has no desire to help, then he shouldn't be vague about it.

Obama said about a week ago in a press conference that he is working with the tribe, the company, and the state on possibly rerouting the pipeline.