When he pushed Obamacare, he completely excluded Republicans from taking part in creating it, polishing it and passing it.
http://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2013/10/daily-chart-1
http://asociologist.com/2013/10/03/compromise-and-the-affordable-care-act/
https://www.whitehouse.gov/health-care-meeting/republican-ideas
In other words, that is simply not true.
When ever he did not get his way, he would go out and make speeches to the public, rather than congress.
As did Republicans. As have countless politicians. That is not unique to Obama in any way, so I fail to see how that is evidence.
In these speeches he would, on countless occasions, mock and ridicule those in Congress who apposed him.
You mean like Republicans saying their number one goal was to make him a one term president? Let's not pretend Obama was unique in that regard, or that it is evidence that he was some sort of unique divider. After all, his predecessor, the last Republican to hold the office, said " "Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists.", a comment that led to one of the most politically divisive periods of recent history with many on the right labeling Democratics Un-American and terrorist sympathizers.
He did not speak to Congress in a way that sought compromise or cooperation. He is still doing this today.
He spoke for compromise and cooperation from the very beginning, and it can be seen in the legislation he had passed as I demonstrated above. Over time as Republicans employed a historically unprecedented number of filibusters and filibuster reforms, as well as voting against their own proposed alternative so as to prevent Democratics from getting a bill passed, he clearly realized that the minority party was not negotiating in good faith and quit trying. Really can't blame him for that.
He told the world in Cairo that America had been arrogant and too willing to lean against other nations with its power
We have been.
He took away the missile defense system from Poland
Something that was supported by a majority of the Poles, as evidenced by polls done there (ha, polls on poles).
He has allowed Crimea to be taken by Putin
What would you have had him do? Send troops over and start WW3?
He either drug his feet, or completely refused to back those fighting for their freedom during the "Arab Spring".
And yet when he didn't, Republicans accused him of rushing in and supporting possible terrorists. This "Damned if you do, damned if you don't" criticism takes away much of the validity of that example.
Until today he will not help the Curds in their fight against ISIL/ISIS.
That is a tough one. I am very supportive of the Kurds and believe an independent Kurdish state needs to happen for a variety of reasons, but if he did so he would be utterly sabotaging relations with Turkey, a key player in the region (at the moment more so than the Kurds).
He has turned his back, literary on Israel.
How so?
http://zfacts.com/p/318.html
You may want to retry that link. When I click on it, I find an article about how an Israeli covert agent supports the Iran nuclear deal.
My statement says the debt has nearly doubled in 8 years which is a fact.
Indeed, but a fact without context is essentially worthless, particularly when you are trying to blame a President for the entirety of added debt outside of the context of a global recession.
Obama is not corrupt in the way most political figures who have been caught with their hand in the cookie jar are.
Do we need to go over the special interests that contributed to his campaign and the favorable treatment he has given him to prove otherwise? I'd be glad to.
He has stated his socialist and even progressive agenda very clearly from the beginning
Please, provide quotes of him stating his "socialist agenda" very clearly.
This is why those who stand against socialism and big ever more powerful government have stood against Obama from the beginning.
That would be legitimate, if he ever had a socialist agenda, which he didn't. He had a Progressive agenda, and Conservative accusing anything progressive of being Socialist because it is easier to demonize your enemy than to argue the validity of the beliefs. It's part of why the political discourse in this country is utter garbage.
