• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Presidential Report Card

How's His Driving?

  • A

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • A-

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • B+

    Votes: 3 7.0%
  • B

    Votes: 2 4.7%
  • B-

    Votes: 4 9.3%
  • C+

    Votes: 3 7.0%
  • C

    Votes: 6 14.0%
  • C-

    Votes: 7 16.3%
  • D+

    Votes: 6 14.0%
  • D-F (please specify, I ran out of room)

    Votes: 14 32.6%

  • Total voters
    43
He gets a solid B from me:)
 
On the Libya situation.. I think people really focus on it too much when they criticize Obama. We've spent less than 2 billion dollars there, that's a tiny fraction of the overall annual budget, and not a single US casualty. The only problem is that there aren't really any US interests being protected, unless I'm wrong.
 
Last edited:
I give him a big fat F double minus. He is a complete failure and has replaced Jimmy Carter as the worst President in History.

Labeling carter as the worst suggests a significent lack of historical knowledge. You call Carter worse then the presidents who failed to prevent the Civil War. A war that cost more American lives then any other war in history. A war that almost ended the entire country. Futhermore, by calling Carter the worst, you argue he's worse then Hoover, who's policies of austerity likely caused the recession of the late 20s to turn into the Great Depresssion.

Carter is nowhere near the worst, or even the top 5 worst.

IMO, rating the worst presidents is a good measure of figuring out who's a hack. Non-hacks generally will put Hoover or Buchanan as one of the top 5 worst presidents. Carter never makes the list.
 
Last edited:
Economy: He did a pretty good job with the stimulus, which likely saved the US from a depression instead of a recession. Although he didn't cut much spending and didn't do a whole lot of a good job of reform, he did a fair job. B
Foreign policy: Libya was a complete failure, with a half-as*ed attempt to manage a semi-war. He was quite patient in diplomacy, but too patient in my opinion. He made some blunders and Afghanistan wasn't as he promised in his campaign. C
Internal affairs: Spent too much time glorifying himself in his speeches and books, but most of his policies like healthcare were okay, but not the best. B+
Other factors: He made some good decisions, like sending in the SEALs instead of a drone to OBL. He had guts, and he knew how to play the game of politics. He was a pretty fair president in my opinion. Not a hyperpartisan hack like some other presidents. He knew how to negotiate, have peace, and was generally a good president. A-
Overall, a B/B+
 
Labeling carter as the worst suggests a significent lack of historical knowledge. You call Carter worse then the presidents who failed to prevent the Civil War. A war that cost more American lives then any other war in history. A war that almost ended the entire country. Futhermore, by calling Carter the worst, you argue he's worse then Hoover, who's policies of austerity likely caused the recession of the late 20s to turn into the Great Depresssion.

Carter is nowhere near the worst, or even the top 5 worst.

IMO, rating the worst presidents is a good measure of figuring out who's a hack. Non-hacks generally will put Hoover or Buchanan as one of the top 5 worst presidents. Carter never makes the list.

hoover and buchanan both sucked. Hoover especially because he should have known better but :shrug: there you go. but i tend to throw LBJ, Wilson, van Buren, and FDR in there as well. I should toss in Adams... but I can't, I just can't.
 
I think its the whole thing to do with Osama is what gives me this impression, but that could have been another thing just for show/ a big political gain.

I don't see how. There were so many ways that operation, and therefore the president, could have failed. That was a HUGE risk he took, just to take bin Laden down.
 
I give him a D. His domestic policies are just flat out awful, and for all the people bitching about the national debt when Bush was in office, they really eat humble pie on this excuse of a president. His foreign policies aren't nearly as bad as I was fearing they would be, but they're still lackluster overall. I thought he did good with Libya in ripping a page out of the Reagan book, attempting to mimic the Iran/Contra deal.

I'd say third worst ever, barely behind Carter and way behind FDR.
 
hoover and buchanan both sucked. Hoover especially because he should have known better but :shrug: there you go.

Hoover did know better. He signed the tariff act despite calling it horrible names. He KNEW it was going to cause a big fat mess and he signed it anyways. It's one thing to think the policy might be good but ends up bad. It's another to know it's a **** policy and to sign it anyways.
 
Back
Top Bottom