What are your thoughts on this man's political legacy...

>Adorable care act increases the cost of healthcare by 40%
Democrats: not even once.

The verbatim example of an "empty suit."
Polish and presentation.
Zero substance.
Fickle, egotistical, self Superior.
Not that different from any other president, but not any better.

N

>And although the health care industry didn't like it, many moderates and the Left did appreciate Obamacare.
It was a failure, user. The only thing the left can do is to say it wasn't real socialism and push for more.

>What are your thoughts on this man's political legacy?
he has none

And the Onig thread 48 hours ago. The the day before. He hasn't done anything since to change people's mind. The threads will have the same responses, you stupid nigs.

A failure through which lens? As far as I'm aware, it helped many folks in lower SES categories afford health care.

For the record, I'm not baiting you. I actually am currently a part of the leadership for the campaign of a staunch Republican candidate for federal Congress. But I was still a zoomer when Obama was in office, so I simply wasn't as attuned to the political mechanisms of the time. I'm curious to know how you thought of him and why you consider the ACA a failure on all fronts. Again, I believe it worked wonderfully for lower-class and lower-middle-class citizens.

RACISM detector 1....2....3....
Yup, you're a RACIST.

RACIST! On the INTERNET of all places?! What would you MOTHER say?

It's 2020, user. Time to put away those edgy MEMES and stop being an INCEL.

I stopped being racist, learned to love DIVERSITY and now, frankly, I'm getting AMAZING ammounts of hot pussy.

WISH you could be like ME?
Step one: Be ANTI-RACIST!

>A failure through which lens?
through every objective lens. healthcare costs have increased after obamacare.
For the same reasons why federally granted loans towards higher education have skyrocketed college tuition costs.

Shit ain't "free" user.

netflix

Attached: Netflixhussein.png (494x668, 705.58K)

Absolutely - there's a cost to every benefit. But we see Scandinavian countries, among others, employ universal healthcare to great effect both in terms of macroeconomics and qualitative indexes such as average levels of happiness.

The higher-education tuition fees are absolutely fuck, though; no disagreement there.

I

>qualitative indexes such as average levels of happiness.
user, you have no fucking clue what happiness even fucking is. I give zero shits about your "index".
>Scandinavian countries
Those countries either have some of the most transparent governments in the history of the world, or are moving away from socialized care.
Moreover, they are quite literally the origin of the free market. They have a long history of trust built up due to this. Moreover, they have a likeminded, homogonized society (of which National socialists push for, but are laughing at their lax immigration policies which are bound to ruin it).

>user, you have no fucking clue what happiness even fucking is. I give zero shits about your "index".
I disagree. It's qualitative, but that doesn't mean it's undefinable. Being callous doesn't take away from major organizations such as the WHO and Forbes from using it as a specific tracker.

>Those countries either have some of the most transparent governments in the history of the world
Very true.

>or are moving away from socialized care
Which Nordic countries are moving away from socialized care?

>Moreover, they are quite literally the origin of the free market. They have a long history of trust built up due to this.
Isn't France the origin of the free market with their "lasseiz-faire" policy, which was inspired by Adam Smith's "Wealth of Nations"?

>Moreover, they have a likeminded, homogonized society (of which National socialists push for, but are laughing at their lax immigration policies which are bound to ruin it).
It's hard to have a homogenized society while also having lax immigration policies. Sweden, for instance, has many Middle Eastern immigrants; they're hardly homogenized as a country, though there may be de facto segregation.

Not the first black president considering the FACT he is a half breed nigger and not full nigger.

>Being callous doesn't take away from major organizations such as the WHO and Forbes from using it as a specific tracker.
yes it literally does. one man's happiness is another's turmoil.
Unlike Forbes and WHO and the WTO tell you, we don't live in one-world kumbaya la-la land.

>Isn't France the origin of the free market with their "lasseiz-faire" policy, which was inspired by Adam Smith's "Wealth of Nations"?
No. The Netherlands are. Though Adam Smith regarded the American colonies as the ideal system he admires.
>Sweden, for instance, has many Middle Eastern immigrants; they're hardly homogenized as a country, though there may be de facto segregation.
Until recently, it wasn't in such a state. The Nat Socs laugh at Sweden because of it. They think it will be the end of their socialist policies because they think socialism can only function when there is a like-minded common bond among a nation (Adam Smith believed the same thing, which is why he supports local social programs, but thinks anything on a federal level is doomed to failure). That common bond being racial homogeneity.
>Which Nordic countries are moving away from socialized care?
There is literally talks from Nordic leaders chastising Bernie Sanders saying we are not a socialist country, and in fact we are slowly moving away from socialist policies.

>in fact we are slowly moving away from socialist policies.
I want to add, the way they are doing this is through their transparent government: one program at a time they are evaluating whether or not the market would perform better or to try and target the accurate bounds for their brand of government.

>yes it literally does. one man's happiness is another's turmoil.
>Unlike Forbes and WHO and the WTO tell >you, we don't live in one-world kumbaya la-la land.
I don't think anyone is telling that. But human beings generally have similar prototypes for well-known concepts. Everyone knows how happiness makes them feel and by and large and per capita, happiness indexes tend to list Scandinavian countries at the top. You can look into the formula; it's nothing esoteric or groundbreaking.

>No. The Netherlands are.
Do you have a source for this? I'd love to read more about the history of the free market.

>Until recently, it wasn't in such a state. The Nat Socs laugh at Sweden because of it. They think it will be the end of their socialist policies because they think socialism can only function when there is a like-minded common bond among a nation (Adam Smith believed the same thing, which is why he supports local social programs, but thinks anything on a federal level is doomed to failure). That common bond being racial homogeneity.
But it is now - and I posit it's difficult to have racial or ethnic homogeneity in a country that also offers lax immigration policies. It's already been in effect for at least once generation. The only solution to this would be the acclimation by immigrants, but that is more difficult to predict given human nature as well as the fundamental nature of many Muslims.

>There is literally talks from Nordic leaders chastising Bernie Sanders saying we are not a socialist country, and in fact we are slowly moving away from socialist policies.
Again, a source would be most appreciated.

>one program at a time they are evaluating whether or not the market would perform better or to try and target the accurate bounds for their brand of government

The most recent article I've found about any Scandinavian country re-evaluating each sector of government and economy case-by-case spells out the opposite of your claim: telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/04/01/sweden-may-have-escaped-lockdown-struggling-resist-socialism/

Drones are cool

>Everyone knows how happiness makes them feel and by and large and per capita
wrong.
INDIVIDUALS know what their own INDIVIDUAL brand of happiness looks like.
The simple fact is, no one knows what happiness actually is. In fact, if you put someone into a state of utter pure "bliss" their immediate reaction would be to find something new to explore.
Moreover social systems do not have feelings of happiness.
>Do you have a source for this? I'd love to read more about the history of the free market.
Read about economic history. Read the wealth of nations. What Smith got out of france was his temporary time working with Voltaire.

Montesquieu was the major figure of free market France.

>The only solution to this would be the acclimation by immigrants, but that is more difficult to predict given human nature as well as the fundamental nature of many Muslims.
OR do what Smith says and only allow social programs to exist on the local level, and not no the federal level. Since it's virtually impossible to get everyone from mixed backgrounds to agree on what should be done. There will always be someone ending up in a state of disappointment.