I suggest you watch the HBO special about what kind of person Nixon was.

You can make comparisons to all presidents with all presidents of the past 50 years, did you know that?

But the person Nixon was, so vile, so destructive and so hateful of democracy

ugh

I hated him but wanted to get a look at him. He asked the crowd how many were under 21 and to raise your hand. I raised my hand not knowing why he asked the question. Then he said, see how many young people we have on our side.
Man was I pissed. I got Dicked by Dick Nixon.
Our slogan was dick Nixon before he dicks you.

That is an unprecedented level of anti-democratic, unconstitutional evil. If one will accept granting the President such power, then what Presidential behavior can one conceivable object to while maintaining a straight face?

Which is why he has been so chummy with the big banks which are the biggest capitalists on earth (100% opposite of communism) Low-info Cons are such IDIOTS.

with the sentence "In which the alerting member shows the substandard reading comprehension that is so typical of this site."

Can a sentence actually be started with the phrase "In which"? It seems more like "in which" is functioning as a conjunction-type thing here, and a comma would have been more appropriate punctuation.
I'm not sure, though.

Any English majors here?

There is also the possibility that Doug might awake to find his bathrobe has caught fire. In that case, he should jump in the shower immediately.

So, it would be punctuated with a comma after "In which"?

Whew! Who knew DU would be such a minefield for grammar and punctuation. My gosh, God help dyslexic liberals, huh?

it is a subordinator. That means that any clause governed by "which" is a dependent clause, not an independent clause, and therefore not a complete sentence.

I even called my sister to try to figure this out. I will give her this info, too.

sentence fragment. To be technically "correct," it should have been attached (as a modifier) to the preceding sentence, but it is sometimes quite effective to use a sentence fragment for emphasis, which is what I believe the juror is doing there.

is a pronoun in a prepositional phrase. The pronoun refers to the entire preceding sentence.

Thank you.

Nixon was never an ideologue, he was a center-right opportunist, politically speaking. I remember all of the Nixon presidency quite vividly.

ETA - he is a center-right politician who leans left when there's nothing huge at stake just as Nixon was a center-right pol who leaned right when there was nothing big at stake. But that Obama is at heart what, in the 1970s, we called a "liberal" or "Rockefeller" Republican is not in doubt. OR maybe a bit more conservative than that, in terms of economic policy. He has certainly bent over backwards to protect the banksters.

And what you have to do to be honest is predict what Nixon's positions would be if he were president NOW

changes everything

I doubt if he would have given each and every last one of the bank$ter$ the free pass they got from Obama.

Cruz and Paul and the rest look like girl scouts.

The people he would hate and target, the poor voting for his opponent, hell he would try and kill every person receiving assistance.

He was a psychopathic bastard, comparing Obama to him is a disgrace.

judgment of history. I hated Nixon's guts and still do. It has to be remembered that Nixon's issues were always personal ones. All about trying to get the people he thought had kept him down. It never would have crossed his mind, say what you will about him, to try to dismantle the New Deal or cut Social Security, something Obama has at least tacitly put on the table.

But I am talking SOLELY about policy, not personalities.

If Obama signs a deal that reduces our social security in anyway, i will join your anti Obama bandwagon

to a presidential election, and my first vote was for Jimmy Carter in 1976. I voted for him again with some disappointment in 2012 because the alternative was unspeakable.

Giving a free pass first to the banksters and now to the torturers has exhausted whatever goodwill I once had for the man.

And then there is this, which is revolting and inexcusable. http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025977947

He could have chosen to say nothing about the most evil family in US history but he did not. He EMBRACED them.

He didn't even bother waiting until after the inauguration to let us know we had been suckered.

can use that clip to torpedo Jeb Bush's chances of winning any teabagger votes.

It's dangerous to collapse these sorts of questions onto a single left-right dimension, but I think you can easily make the case that politically Obama is to the right of even Reagan.

something no repuke would even dream of.

Oh sure he's smart. He's always playing "three-dimensional chess," hadn't you heard? He's just thinking so many steps ahead of the rest of us ordinary mortals that we can't possibly comprehend it.

I mean, when he gives trillions to the banksters & protects their bonuses, and makes sure none of them get indicted for racketeering, ordinary mortals MIGHT get the impression that he was just a stooge of the banksters. But No! Actually, it just shows what a "deep" thinker he is. He's just making everyone THINK he's a stooge of the banksters, to lull them into overconfidence! Then he can more easily carry out his secret socialist agenda, donchaknow.

It's worth posing the question: if the CEO of Goldman Sachs had been appointed US president in November 2008, how would his policies have differed from Obama's? Or if Obama himself pledged to simply carry out instructions from the Business Round Table, how would things be different? It would be hard to think of a single thing that would be different.

Welcome to DU.

and gas is cheap now! LOOK OVER THERE!!!!

welcome to DU

And Barry left out the innocents killed by drones & massive NSA spying on American citizens.

But I do agree with this~

unfortunately

millions of hopeful young people to complete disillusionment. The author left off his school corporatization initiatives, Race To The Bottom, TPP.

A major disappointment. However,

1. He had plenty of help from Pelosi and Reid
2. It was probably a done deal anyway

Holy fucking shit.

There's not enough facepalm in the world for that ridiculous statement.



Sid

Obama has embraced austerity. Reagan wouldn't have touched social security. Obama has put it on the table more than once. Their treatment of trade unions is close, though the president can really just ignore them since they're almost dead anyway. The president is also assisting the dismantling of public schools in favor of corporate "charter schools", something that Slick Ronnie never tried. I mean, read the author's list and add in TPP and Arne Duncan and drone strikes. There's plenty of faceplam.

And still manages to sleep at night.

I can appreciate his qualified successes, while lamenting his inexcusable wrongs- I don't see things in black and white, but in shades of gray.

I don't know who Barry Ritholtz is, but his agenda is clearly on view.

It's more click bait than anything else.

Definitely click bait.

Center right.

In Arizona the state GOP went so far as to censure him for his liberalness.

Everything he has done, he had done only for the 1%. He has bent over backwards to please the Republicans since day one. He basically told the left we were retarded and needed to STFU the minute he won the presidency. Honestly, I'm surprised it's against the rules on a Democratic site to point this stuff out, because it is the truth.

If his wife and kids had not dragged him kicking and screaming, he would not have finally relented on gay rights either. I remember "God is in the mix" was all we heard for ages before that.

Waste of board space.

the Democratic party. History if funny like that.

I think it was during Andrew Jackson's corrupt time in office, but would have to go looking to be sure.

and the GOP still had a liberal wing and hadn't run out the Chafees and Rockefellers, I suppose I could imagine a scenario where Obama would have been a liberal Republican, particularly if he had stayed in Boston. I might also say that this imaginary alternate world is one that Boomers have been stuck in for several decades now (witness the atavistic screeching whenever Nixon is brought up).

That said, we do not live in such a world. We live in a world in which Obama is a lifelong Democrat, and his strongest support among Democrats comes from liberal Democrats, and his weakest support among Democrats comes from conservative Democrats, and his support among Republicans is essentially nil.

Anybody that says otherwise is an idiot that learned economics from other idiots, likely over the internet. Frankly, I doubt there is anything more effective than unemployment benefits from a keynesian perspective.

That should tell you the general quality of the analysis in the OP. It's junk.

Overall, Obama is like a better version of JFK. But that's a bad thing on "democratic"underground because, hey, democrats should hate capitalism, maaaan.

Barack Obama, like his predecessors, is a servant of the corporate oligarchy.

The goal of the corporate oligarchy is to consolidate more power and money into fewer and fewer hands and Obama has performed for them magnificently.

Democrats is best for our party, we leave this to Republicans.

and I think that Obama is a Democrat but just not as progressive as I am. He seems to be doing a pretty good job and if you look at his accomplishments, quite impressive. I admittedly was hoping for a much more progressive type of leader but that was probably just a "dream". I have always been pretty much a yellow-dog democrat but these days it is another age from what we had during the 60's.

I would never classify Obama a Republican of any sort.

Peace