Crack epidemic didn't exist or you believe the government was involved with the crack epidemic? Because there absolutely was a crack epidemic in the 80's and early 90's. The numbers don't lie on that.
Yes what? You are analyzing him from the perspective of an ideologue in modern times with the hindsight of history and ignoring numerous aspects of context one typically uses when evaluating persons of history.
So sure, you are giving the perspective of the short-sighted lazy liberal ideologues that attempt to view history through narrow prisms of ideology. Which does have its value to some extent. However that is neither a well rounded analysis nor does it answer the question of the OP that you are suddenly so concerned with.
The crime laws
War on drugs
Free trade deals
Glass Steagall repeal
It's pretty hard to like his presidency as a liberal.
Meth is called an epidemic all the time. Other than. That I mostly agree with the post.https://www.corwin.com/sites/defaul...Reader___Chp_3_The_Crack_Attack_Final_Pdf.pdf
There wasn't an epidemic. Usage rates of cocaine and usage rates of crack don't malign, it didn't become an epidemic until the fed instituted disproportionate sentencing laws in order to combat the "threat" that never really existed.
This Harvard study found that most youth asked about crack cocaine usage who admitted to usage shows that the rates actually peaked in the late 90's, not the mid/late 80's and early 90's. Usage grew as the drug became introduced as a cheap alternative to cocaine, the rich mans drug, that was affordable to the street level junky. The rates have plateaued and remained relatively steady and stable since 1989, before the Bush administration began its crack war crackdowns. Meth's usage rate over the last 20 years has mirrored the growth and impact of crack almost 1/1 and yet nobody has called that an "epidemic".
There was no epidemic. It was a scare tactic designed to target the disproportionately poor, primarily black, users in order to clean up the streets and the inner city to drive down crime rates and fill the prison systems longer over time.
Speaking of worthless, how about unsolicited drive-by claims of me being an ideologue for making such a tepid judgement as "it's hard to like his presidency", backed up by several specific negative aspects of his legacy?
It's not ancient history. The man left office 15 years ago. But please, enlighten us with your brilliant, balanced analysis, or lay off of the drive-by, judgemental shitposts.
Bill had the potential to be a progressive President but the Republican Revolution of 94 had to make him think on his feet, Dems lost the House after decades of control and it was a kick in the gut to the entire party. Not to mention the Republicans ushered in and their antics have lingering effects to this day that contribute to the extreme right-wing politics that continue to poison Congress and our political discourse.
probably mostly good but for me pretty damn bad
dude out reagan'd reagan in many respects
Good and Bad
Good and the short term for the country over all.
But now the long term affect got more people second guessing.
- Dont ask dont tell
- Defense of marriage act
- "Tough on Crime" laws
- War on Drugs expansion
- Welfare reform
- Glass-Steagall Act repeal
there where positives, dont get me wrong, but yeah, His presidency, for me, is largely questionable in hindsight
Even though the president has little influence over the economy. It's too complex to give anyone real credit.It's held as a high regard in the States too. If he ran for office again he would likely win because of how well the economy fared under his administration.
There is nothing "shitpost" about pointing out vapid historical analysis and telling you why it is such.
Jesus dude. Calm down. I am not an idealogue. My entire historical and political perspective is not distilled in those 5 lines that I posted.And I am not sure what other word you want to use for someone that evaluates history entirely by how well they adhere to their strict present day ideological dogma.
I remember the man and times and the country under his presidency fondly. All good times.
As I grow older and look more into his politics and decision making there are things that crop up that make you shake your head. A little too willing to just fall into established BS. continuing the war on drugs/3 strikes bullshit and such like that.
Mostly what I've taken away via Clinton and Obama vs the Bush fam is that i can actually relate to the former and actively dislike (for various reasons) the latter. It has tended to make me think along the lines of "Who would i want to speak for me in a conversation with other leaders of the world" as a main factor in who i vote for.
To that end - i wish Obama could be president for life cause fuck meng.... i just wanna like... chill on a beach and drink beer/smoke j's with that dude.
OP: How is Bill Clinton viewed in the US today?
Me: As a liberal in the US, here are my issues with his presidency...
Terrible poster/General asshole Jonm1010: Your post is worthless, and your opinion invalid.
I didn't provide a comprehensive chronicling of his presidency from an historical perspective because that's not what my post was intended to do, and it's not what the OP asked.
Jesus dude. Calm down.
My post is not that far back. You can go read what it actually said instead of relying on your perversion of it.
The OP was simple, it asked how the US views Clinton. You offered up your personal view of him based on how he adheres to your personal interpretation of liberal ideology. You used the OP as a jumping off point to list off out of context reasons you personally don't like him. Which is not what the OP asked. So don't try and play that card.
I then offered up why that is a short sighted analysis of Clinton or history in general. You seem incapable of dealing with constructive criticism and started getting short so now we are here.
I'm loving the irony of "Anyone who does not answer the OP in a format that I deem acceptable and does not have an opinion I deem acceptable is an ideologue." If you want to keep insulting me, take it to PMs so we can stop shitting up this thread.
Damn, my dude B.A.P. really got nuked. He had a good point though, Bill's expansion of the War on Drugs and the three strikes policy were disastrous for black communities.
Yeah, those are probably some of the most harmful parts of his tenure. Just the absolute worst decisions in hindsight.Damn, my dude B.A.P. really got nuked. He had a good point though, Bill's expansion of the War on Drugs and the three strikes policy were disastrous for black communities.
Bill Clinton took office with pretty strong Democratic majorities in both houses, his first battle was between the left of the Democratic Party and the still Southern Conservative wing over his budget bill. A hill everyone was willing to war over was regarding home heating fuel taxes. With Gore and the Left battling Bentsen and the Right.People forget that this sort of disfunction and anti-legitimization was brand new back then. Gingrich steamrolled Clinton and it looked like he was going to be a failed one term president only weeks after taking office.
what is this i don't evenWas Bill Clinton more conservative than Reagan? I need to look at more of their policies, but I think he was.
I find that it's best to judge Presidents on a sliding scale of the two terms before and after their terms. The Bushes on either side of Clinton were worse. (As were the last days of Reagan.) Dole was unlikely to be better. Therefore, Clinton rates out well.Absolutely they were bad policies with the benefit of hindsight.
How one should judge Clinton for those is a harder question to answer. One I am not sure I have been able to find a final resting place on.
I find that it's best to judge Presidents on a sliding scale of the two terms before and after their terms. The Bushes on either side of Clinton were worse. (As were the last days of Reagan.) Dole was unlikely to be better. Therefore, Clinton rates out well.
Same thing for Carter really. At least in my opinion.
It all has to be relative because we can't compare Presidents to ideals, but only to each other.
Take all the bad stuff Clinton did. Would Bush/Dole/Bush have done it? Probably yes to 80+% of it. Take the good stuff Clinton did. Would Bush/Dole/Bush have done it? Probably no to a lot of it. And in many cases they would have been worse. Clinton rejected the original welfare reform packages multiple times, W. Bush would have signed the first one, etc.
From a management perspective Carter was a disaster who wasted half his term because he was trying to be his own chief of staff and refused to talk to Congress.
Otherwise he was certainly less bad than the three guys before him and maybe everyone after him.
The pardon alone was amazing.
He was a nuclear engineer too.I think more along the lines that he was probably the most genuinely good guy we've had as President in modern history? Or at least the closest thing to someone genuinely good. The position seems to come with a lot of warts.
The fun part will be when you don't explain this link. Or know the history of Glass-Steagall and who got it passed in the first place.He helped the right wing repeal Glass-Steagall, which fucked over so many people its ridiculous.
I believe in Europe his presidency is generally held in high regard. Does his legacy affect Hillary's campaign in any way? It feels like it is hardly ever talked about.
One factor in these is that partisans still rank the "last" President as best or worst with no inbetween. Much like NeoGAF.com evaluating video games. Reagan was rated horribly in every single historian poll, and had that massive split in public polls. Bush/Obama have it going on currently.Bill was ranked as both the 3rd worst president since WW2, and the 2nd best according to a 2006 Quinnipiac poll.
Clinton rose taxes too, right in his first year. "Largest tax increase in history" at the time based on dubious valuations.Bush right before rose taxes(Got kicked for doing it),