Obama writes editorial in Wired Magazine: 'Brush off the cynics and fearmongers' - Polidicks

From politico, reporting on the editorial: [url]http://www.politico.com/story/2016/10/obama-wired-magazine-guest-editor-229664[/url] [quote]President Barack Obama urged Americans to “brush off the cynics and fearmongers” in the upcoming issue of Wired magazine, writing that right now is the best moment “in the course of human history to be alive.”[/quote] [quote]Obama wrote that since 1983, the year he graduated college, the rates of crime, poverty and teen pregnancy in the U.S. have all dropped while life expectancy and the number of Americans with college degrees are both up. The status of minorities, a source of much protest and controversy in recent months, has also improved over that same time period, the president wrote.[/quote] Here's the piece: [url]https://www.wired.com/2016/10/president-obama-guest-edits-wired-essay/[/url] It's definitely worth a read

it's nice to have a little bit of optimism once in a while

Everything has been improving. Like technology and a bunch of other stuff. The downside of technology being much more common and easier to use to communicate. It gives voice to the complete misguided majority of people that exist on this rock.

4 MORE YEARS!

A short and pretty great read. It doesn't really veer off into anything political, but instead talks about how fast we're technologically advancing, and how much the US has really changed from the 1950's, or even since the 1980's. Lots of optimism for the future as well. I really am going to miss Obama.

Obama really wasn't bad at all, a lot of the time whenever people complain about him they say he did nothing at all, but a part of me thinks that those complaining measure success by the big events a president does rather than the more subtle things they do to improve quality of life. Also people seem to forget presidents still have to work within an entire system and can't fix things overnight, change is something that has to progress over time and hardly anything ever fixes itself instantly.

Remember this anyone? [img]http://cloudfront.mediamatters.org/static/images/item/gaspricesobama.jpg[/img] Obama has had far too many complaints against him for things he never even did.

Not a bad read. He really sells that belief in the future of progress and the human spirit. I'm not sure I fit into that vision much as a history major, but it sounds nice.

[QUOTE=VagueWisdom;51217142]Obama really wasn't bad at all, a lot of the time whenever people complain about him they say he did nothing at all, but a part of me thinks that those complaining measure success by the big events a president does rather than the more subtle things they do to improve quality of life. Also people seem to forget presidents still have to work within an entire system and can't fix things overnight, change is something that has to progress over time and hardly anything ever fixes itself instantly.[/QUOTE] and a republican dominated congress shot down any of his attempts to improve things for a long while. thats the problem with the bipartisan 'us vs them' mentality both parties have, they're never willing to cooperate

It's good to have optimism for a while. Popular opinion will probably skyrocket in next four years.

Christ, Obama has such a "presidential" look about him. He's aged tons since he took office, but he came out of it looking like a sage leader. He's always been a talented speaker and writer too. [quote][t]https://www.wired.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/potus_essay1.jpg[/t][/quote] [editline]17th October 2016[/editline] I'm more eager to see his historical legacy. His issues with mass surveillance will come up, but I imagine a lot of positives despite that. If you thought the nostalgia for the Bush years was bad, hooooo we're just getting started with Obama nostalgia

Too bad youre going from a pretty fine president to an idiot or a lying reptile. [editline]17th October 2016[/editline] I dont mean that Obama is changing into either of those I hope it's obvious what I mean. Not that it provides anything useful though.

[QUOTE=Map in a box;51217182]Remember this anyone? Obama has had far too many complaints against him for things he never even did.[/QUOTE] There were people who passed this around on Facebook unironically, not only with it being demonstrably untrue, but also while HAVING SEEN what the actual gas prices were in 2009. Just...think about that for a moment.

[QUOTE=Smug Bastard;51218147]There were people who passed this around on Facebook unironically, not only with it being demonstrably untrue, but also while HAVING SEEN what the actual gas prices were in 2009. Just...think about that for a moment.[/QUOTE] Stupidity knows no bounds

[QUOTE=paindoc;51217977]Christ, Obama has such a "presidential" look about him. He's aged tons since he took office, but he came out of it looking like a sage leader. He's always been a talented speaker and writer too. [editline]17th October 2016[/editline] I'm more eager to see his historical legacy. His issues with mass surveillance will come up, but I imagine a lot of positives despite that. If you thought the nostalgia for the Bush years was bad, hooooo we're just getting started with Obama nostalgia[/QUOTE] Obama even today still has quite a perky spirit in his speeches. Even when it's something serious like the threat of a Trump presidency, he'll get his point across in a simple way that isn't condescending, is well explained and also contains a good punchline or two to keep it entertaining. He really knows how to handle a speech, probably the first and last president in my lifetime that I'll see do it this well going by the current trajectory of the major parties.

[QUOTE=paindoc;51217977]Christ, Obama has such a "presidential" look about him. He's aged tons since he took office, but he came out of it looking like a sage leader. He's always been a talented speaker and writer too. [editline]17th October 2016[/editline] I'm more eager to see his historical legacy. His issues with mass surveillance will come up, but I imagine a lot of positives despite that. If you thought the nostalgia for the Bush years was bad, hooooo we're just getting started with Obama nostalgia[/QUOTE] What exactly is there to be nostalgic for? What the hell did he even do besides enacting a failed healthcare reform and massively increase droning?

[QUOTE=King Tiger;51218432]What exactly is there to be nostalgic for? What the hell did he even do besides enacting a failed healthcare reform and massively increase droning?[/QUOTE] It's kinda hard to make your healthcare work when all the tweaks you want with it are impossible to pass with a piss ant manchild right-wing government shitting all over and denying your work for 8 years, and then blaming you for "not doing anything you useless muslim".

[QUOTE=King Tiger;51218432]What exactly is there to be nostalgic for? What the hell did he even do besides enacting a failed healthcare reform and massively increase droning?[/QUOTE] Do you think the ACA didn't go far enough or went too far and our previous health insurance framework was fine? I only ask because you've lambasted liberals in the past for not being liberal enough but seem to never support any genuine liberal politicians or policies.

[QUOTE=King Tiger;51218432]What exactly is there to be nostalgic for? What the hell did he even do besides enacting a failed healthcare reform and massively increase droning?[/QUOTE] Have you seen your current nominees?

[QUOTE=Raidyr;51218474]Do you think the ACA didn't go far enough or went too far and our previous health insurance framework was fine? I only ask because you've lambasted liberals in the past for not being liberal enough but seem to never support any genuine liberal politicians or policies.[/QUOTE] Doesn't go far enough. The Dems didn't even make an effort to get a public option which would have been so easy. They could have threatened to blackball the Blue Dogs and they would have come around but they didn't try. They kept saying how they wanted to get bipartisan support for the ACA but not a single Republican voted for it so they wasted their time trying to find an imaginary middle ground. That's probably because this is the plan they wanted all along because the main thing it does is help the insurance companies (now you have to buy from them, of course they love it). It's a disgrace and a catastrophe of a plan. [editline]17th October 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=RandomGamer342;51218483]Have you seen your current nominees?[/QUOTE] That's not going to make me nostalgic for a center-right hawk who accomplished very little as president. If Obama had 4 more years he'd most likely shoot down a Russian jet in Syria, as he's stated he wants to do. Then the whole world would probably blow up.

[QUOTE=King Tiger;51218494]Doesn't go far enough. The Dems didn't even make an effort to get a public option which would have been so easy. They could have threatened to blackball the Blue Dogs and they would have come around but they didn't try. They kept saying how they wanted to get bipartisan support for the ACA but not a single Republican voted for it so they wasted their time trying to find an imaginary middle ground. That's probably because this is the plan they wanted all along because the main thing it does is help the insurance companies (now you have to buy from them, of course they love it). It's a disgrace and a catastrophe of a plan. [/QUOTE] Do you think universal healthcare is the way to go then?

[QUOTE=Raidyr;51218515]Do you think universal healthcare is the way to go then?[/QUOTE] Yeah it's pretty obvious that it's the best system. Nobody in our government is interested however, including the liberal darling Obama. Hence they don't make the attempt even when they have ample opportunity.

[QUOTE=King Tiger;51218529]Yeah it's pretty obvious that it's the best system. Nobody in our government is interested however, including the liberal darling Obama. Hence they don't make the attempt even when they have ample opportunity.[/QUOTE] Obama was looking to the future, he wanted a bi-partisan healthcare program so the next republican president wouldn't just tear it down. In hindsight a wasted opportunity, the Republicans hated his guts far too much to ever cooperate.

I can only imagine if Obama decided to privatize healthcare and eliminate medicare and medicaid the GOP would blow the fuck up and say 'You see!? He doesn't want to give you universal healthcare, vote for us!" just to go the opposite of him in spite.

Thanks Obama

[QUOTE=King Tiger;51218494]Doesn't go far enough. The Dems didn't even make an effort to get a public option which would have been so easy.[/QUOTE] uh what. The Republican-controlled Senate Finance Committee shot down the public option that was initially included in the House-approved ACA draft. 45 House Democrats fought for the Public Option Deficit Reduction Act after that happening, which would amend the ACA to include a public option, in 2013 - and the sponsor, Schakowsky, reintroduced the bill [i]last year[/i]. The DNC Platform Draft Committee included getting a public option into the official Democratic Party platform. The only reason the public option failed was because of the Senate Finance Committee, controlled by Republicans, refused it. The House of Reps included it in the original ACA, and there's been tons of Democrats fighting for a public option amendment to the ACA since it was passed. Don't know why you think it "would've been so easy" when the [I]sole reason[/I] there is no public option in the ACA is because a Republican-controlled Senate Committee blocked it. House Democrats have been fighting for a public option fairly consistently since the ACA passed.

[QUOTE=.Isak.;51218699]uh what. The Republican-controlled Senate Finance Committee shot down the public option that was initially included in the House-approved ACA draft. 45 House Democrats fought for the Public Option Deficit Reduction Act after that happening, which would amend the ACA to include a public option, in 2013 - and the sponsor, Schakowsky, reintroduced the bill [i]last year[/i]. The DNC Platform Draft Committee included getting a public option into the official Democratic Party platform. The only reason the public option failed was because of the Senate Finance Committee, controlled by Republicans, refused it. The House of Reps included it in the original ACA, and there's been tons of Democrats fighting for a public option amendment to the ACA since it was passed. Don't know why you think it "would've been so easy" when the [I]sole reason[/I] there is no public option in the ACA is because a Republican-controlled Senate Committee blocked it. House Democrats have been fighting for a public option fairly consistently since the ACA passed.[/QUOTE] Yeah, the Republicans having the Senate has been a major buzz-kill for any sensible legislation I mean FFS, various republican congressmen have blocked attempts by the military to counter climate-change purely for idealogical reasons. These are the sort of people that usually wish to support the military, but when the Navy for example comes along and says "hey yeah this climate change thing is gonna fuck newport news [I]up[/I]", they get accused of [quote] “The military, the intelligence community [and] the domestic national security agencies should be focused on ISIS and not on climate change. The fact that the president wants to push a radical, green energy agenda should not diminish our ability to counter terrorism.”[/quote] This was part of a large measure to increase the military's ability to cope with climate change and the like, and was actually a bill fairly well-supported by military personnel iirc. But, it gets blocked because "the president wants to push a radical green energy agenda" Obama can't / couldn't get shit done :/

There are a bunch of no brainer issues where popular support is moving out from under them but they still continue to block everything for literally no other reason than they don't like Obama/Hillary. I know FP gun owners think washington is going to fuck them in the ass but gun reform has popular support too but nope fuck that we're not allowed to do anything useful. Same thing with the SCOTUS blocking pledge bullshit they tried to pull just now. It's a function of government that the President is allowed to appoint supreme court justices but "nope you can't because we're upset that we [are probably going to lose the election.]"

I saw something recently that talked about Obama being the youngest former president we will have had in a long time. It will be interesting to see how he defines his post presidential life seeing as he still has so much of his life ahead of him combined with his high favorability leaving office.

More college degrees? Yea because any decent job which really shouldn't require a degree now does to weed out complete idiots(even then some still manage to slip through). Teen pregnancy going down? Yea, because you keep fearmongering teens into not wanting kids. And that bit about poverty? Yea that's wrong [URL]https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/50/Number_in_Poverty_and_Poverty_Rate_1959_to_2011._United_States..PNG[/URL]