Just about anyone who hates Obama already hates El Syed. So there's definitely nothing to lose there. However this is going to stick badly in the crawl of many neoliberals and Neo conservatives that are currently trying to demonize him. And that's a good thing.
this post was submitted on 05 Oct 2026
133 points (99.3% liked)
politics
31339 readers
2498 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles. Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to US politics and contain quality and original content. Social Media adjacent hosts like Substack are allowed, but ONLY if they tie back to a company/subsidiary. No personal or friend group blogs and no self-promotion. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and re-hosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing other users of being bots or paid actors.
- No memes, trolling, misinformation, or low-effort posts/comments (including reposts). If you see posts like this that anger you, do not engage. Report, block, and live a happier life than they do. Any slap-fight is subject to comment removals. Fights full of rule violations will result in temporary bans to cool off.
- No manipulating votes via bots or alt accounts; this will result in permanent bans. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in an account ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be permanently banned.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules and use critical thinking when reading, posting, and commenting. Users that repeatedly have comments or posts removed, weaponize reports, or violate the code of conduct, will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users. The reason(s) behind moderator action(s) are publicly available through the Modlog.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
I hate Obama for abandoning the movement that got him elected, and all the bombings, but he's still better than anyone who followed him
Which is fair. But it's also politics. Getting elected in a system like this demands compromise. Which is why we shouldn't have systems like this.
Compromise is good and healthy, and best case you get the best of opposing views. Not sure I prefer a system where half the population gets smashed into misery.
I do get the frustration at compromising with... people with bad ideas. But they get a say as well. That's democracy.
Edit: maybe you are referring to two party system. Which yeah isn't great. But with multi party they still need to make deals and compromises, just at a different layer, still better though
I never said compromise was bad. I said the system that we have should not exist because of the way the compromise works out.
Compromise is fine. But not with an owned unanswerable state. Under those conditions you compromise, those that are on the state do not. And that's not compromise.
I might not completely follow.
there is no compromising with an unmoveable apparatus?
There is certainly a tonne of inertia that is... anti human.
Compromise requires two or more groups. All accountable to each other to have any meaningful compromise. Otherwise you get what we have. The wealthy get what they want and sacrifice nothing. We sacrifice plenty and get nothing. To be clear, I'm an anarchist. I think the state should be flat and granular. Granular enough that it could operate largely via absolute consent. And compromise where required is meaningful.
agreed
I've literally never heard someone say "ex-president". Are they paying per letter on this title?
It's "former president" or just "president". The title is retained. This is standard journalism.
"Ex" has a colloquial negative feeling behind it. So much so, that I actually misread the title and thought it was referring to a president of some Latin American country. Which is the only time I see the phrase. When American journalist are trying to apply negativity towards a foreign state.
Really odd.
Nice!
Once again the auth lefty predictions were completely wrong about the democratic party.
When you bow down to the establishment so hard, Obama comes to campaign for you.
This is Obama moving leftwards, not Abdul moving rightwards. Obama is getting on the Progressive bus, not the other way around. Abdul and the larger Progressive wing is still driving the bus.
Hopefully, the Establishment Dems continue being humble and stop fighting for control of the party. I doubt it though, so it's important for the Progressives to keep pushing.
Obama was supposed to be the anti establishment change guy before he betrayed everything he campaigned on.
Some people can truly not stop falling for it.