Is Obama a good president?[W:577]

calamity said:

Well...Reagan was napping while his minions were trading arms for hostages, and then he awoke to say his minions did not trade arms for hostages. **** happens. Sometimes **** happening is good: Obama saw our SEALS get Osama; Reagan saw the USSR begin to sink.

Obama is average, like Reagan.

Click to expand...

do you think the OBL termination would have been different if McCain had been president

TurtleDude said:

do you think the OBL termination would have been different if McCain had been president

Click to expand...

Of course. Unlike Obama, McCain would not have gone into Pakistan.

In July 2008, CNN's Larry King interviewed then-presidential candidate John McCain. The host asked the Republican senator, "If you were president and knew that bin Laden was in Pakistan, you know where, would you have U.S. forces go in after him?"
McCain said he would not.

"Larry, I'm not going to go there and here's why: because Pakistan is a sovereign nation."
Daily Kos: John McCain said he wouldn't go after Bin Laden in Pakistan

Click to expand...

Probably because he would still be focused on the quagmire in Iraq. After all, McCain whined the loudest when Obama agreed to follow through with the troop withdrawal schedule negotiated by Bush.
McCain clashes with Panetta over U.S. troop withdrawal from Iraq - CNN.com


Are you sure you want to go down this path? Obama accomplished two things which we see above McCain would have failed to achieve. At the very least, this shows Obama is not a bad president, but your candidate would have been.

calamity said:

. . . . Obama is average, like Reagan.

Click to expand...

I disagree. I think he is below average. He lacks diplomacy. His foreign policy is ineffectual and weak. The Arab leaders are laughing at him. He hasn't earned their respect, that's for sure. Same with Iran. He involves himself in petty issues. His timing for this healthcare fiasco was an abomination. I could go on.

ChrisL said:

I disagree. I think he is below average. 1. He lacks diplomacy. 2. His foreign policy is ineffectual and weak. 3. The Arab leaders are laughing at him. He hasn't earned their respect, that's for sure. Same with Iran. 4. He involves himself in petty issues. 5. His timing for this healthcare fiasco was an abomination. I could go on.

Click to expand...

1. Bush had diplomacy? Funny how suddenly diplomacy matters. Must be like deficits.
2, Well, except for that Bin Laden thing and the fact that we're out of Iraq and drawing down in Afghanistan.
3. Really? Have any Arabs flown planes into any of our buildings on his watch?
4. I think his problem is he is too detached, not detail oriented in the least bit.
5. Not at all. The timing was perfect. He's not up for reelection.

Better than Bush, worse than Clinton, on par with Reagan.

calamity said:

1. Bush had diplomacy? Funny how suddenly diplomacy matters. Must be like deficits.
2, Well, except for that Bin Laden thing and the fact that we're out of Iraq and drawing down in Afghanistan.
3. Really? Have any Arabs flown planes into any of our buildings on his watch?
4. I think his problem is he is too detached, not detail oriented in the least bit.
5. Not at all. The timing was perfect. He's not up for reelection.

Better than Bush, worse than Clinton, on par with Reagan.

Click to expand...

I'm not talking about Bush. The thread is about Obama. It's also not about Clinton or Reagan. It's about President Obama. There have been more people unemployed and collecting benefits since Obama became president. How many extensions have there been to unemployment benefits again? Remember all the hype about jobs? Then all the sudden, it's healthcare. The healthcare plan has been horribly inadequate so far, people's premiums are rising not to mention the computer glitches just to gain access to sign up. I'll think of more things later.

calamity said:

Of course. Unlike Obama, McCain would not have gone into Pakistan.



Probably because he would still be focused on the quagmire in Iraq. After all, McCain whined the loudest when Obama agreed to follow through with the troop withdrawal schedule negotiated by Bush.
McCain clashes with Panetta over U.S. troop withdrawal from Iraq - CNN.com


Are you sure you want to go down this path? Obama accomplished two things which we see above McCain would have failed to achieve. At the very least, this shows Obama is not a bad president, but your candidate would have been.

Click to expand...

small point, but Obama did try to extend the SOFA agreement negotiated by Bush to stay in Iraq.

Only because al-Sadr, and al-Malaki told him words to the effect of "you stay in Iraq, you are subject to Iraqi law" did Obama withdrawl.

This was negotiated in Afg too - since the loya jirga allowed so called "US immunity" - and was set to go into effect for Obama to stay AGAIN in Afg.

Only thing that held that up (so afar) is Karzai's intransigence, that it has to be signed past the next April presidential election.
Obama envisions bases in Afg. just as he tried to keep bases in Iraq.

McCain is an idiot; supporting drones for Paki, but not going after bin Laden. There are plenty of legitimate reasons to have done what Obama did.
bin Laden should have been targeted, unlike a lot of the drones that target so called "militants" in Afpak.

US war policy is a complete mess.

TurtleDude said:

do you think the OBL termination would have been different if McCain had been president

Click to expand...

Yes, it would have been accomplished with missile attacks that destroyed half the city but didn't endanger any American operators.

annata said:

small point, but Obama did try to extend the SOFA agreement negotiated by Bush to stay in Iraq.

Only because al-Sadr, and al-Malaki told him words to the effect of "you stay in Iraq, you are subject to Iraqi law" did Obama withdrawl.

This was negotiated in Afg too - since the loya jirga allowed so called "US immunity" - and was set to go into effect for Obama to stay AGAIN in Afg.

Only thing that held that up (so afar) is Karzai's intransigence, that it has to be signed past the next April presidential election.
Obama envisions bases in Afg. just as he tried to keep bases in Iraq.

Click to expand...

No argument. We aren't leaving Iraq because of anything Obama did. However, he also didn't do anything stupid to keep us there or, worse, dig us in deeper. Ditto Afghanistan.

McCain is an idiot; supporting drones for Paki, but not going after bin Laden. There are plenty of legitimate reasons to have done what Obama did.
bin Laden should have been targeted, unlike a lot of the drones that target so called "militants" in Afpak.

US war policy is a complete mess.

Click to expand...

Yes. But...McCain would have made it worse and Romney seemed to think attacking Iran was an essential part of the American defense strategy.
Romney Wants To Attack Iran To Prevent A Dirty Bomb - The Daily Beast

If I were Iran, if I were Iran—a crazed fanatic, I'd say let's get a little fissile material to Hezbollah, have them carry it to Chicago or some other place, and then if anything goes wrong, or America starts acting up, we'll just say, "Guess what? Unless you stand down, why, we're going to let off a dirty bomb." I mean this is where we have—where America could be held up and blackmailed by Iran, by the mullahs, by crazy people. So we really don't have any option but to keep Iran from having a nuclear weapon.

Click to expand...

And, there's more than one source saying this stuff.
http://www.thenation.com/article/171023/dogs-war-are-barking#

The Republican nominee has surrounded himself with advisors who are committed to military action and regime change against Iran, the same people who brought us the Global War on Terror and the Iraq War. Along with their colleagues in hawkish think tanks, they have spent years priming the public to believe that Iran has an ongoing nuclear weapons program, making ludicrous claims about “crazy” mullahs nuking Israel and the United States, pooh-poohing diplomacy—and getting ever shriller each time credible officials and analysts disagree.

Click to expand...

So, Obama is clearly the best of the available options. I know I'm not ready to go to war with Iran. Who's next for the Hawks? North Korea?

Grand Mal said:

Yes, it would have been accomplished with missile attacks that destroyed half the city but didn't endanger any American operators.

Click to expand...

that speculation is based on what empirical data?

TurtleDude said:

that speculation is based on what empirical data?

Click to expand...

The same empirical data your speculations are based on, big boy. Just 'cuz I say so.

Grand Mal said:

Yes, it would have been accomplished with missile attacks that destroyed half the city but didn't endanger any American operators.

Click to expand...

And probably would have missed the intended target.

The Right had 7 years to get OBL. Pure fail. Obama nails him in less than three, and all the Right can do is say Obama's is a failed presidency.

shakes head

ChrisL said:

I'm not talking about Bush. The thread is about Obama. It's also not about Clinton or Reagan. It's about President Obama. There have been more people unemployed and collecting benefits since Obama became president. How many extensions have there been to unemployment benefits again? Remember all the hype about jobs? Then all the sudden, it's healthcare. The healthcare plan has been horribly inadequate so far, people's premiums are rising not to mention the computer glitches just to gain access to sign up. I'll think of more things later.

Click to expand...

When you judge a president, it is germane to the conversation to compare him to prior presidents.

Same question I asked Nota--Do you judge Obama in a vacuum?

nota bene said:

That's right. The thread is about whether Obama is a good President. Demonstrably, he is not, and it really doesn't matter if he has three Ivy League doctorates or a Bachelor's in Basket-Weaving.

Click to expand...

If Obama had a Bachelor's Degree in Basket-Weaving from Harvard he would be the coolest president ever.

calamity said:

When you judge a president, it is germane to the conversation to compare him to prior presidents.

Same question I asked Nota--Do you judge Obama in a vacuum?

Click to expand...

I judge Obama based on his own merit.

ChrisL said:

I judge Obama based on his own merit.

Click to expand...

So, you got nothing to judge him by but your imagination. Nice.

When looking at all the other presidents we've had I can't possibly say he's below mediocre or better than average.

His initial foreign policy successes have collapsed in upon themselves. And his rollout of the PPACA is an absolute disaster. But he was still the second best option and certainly better than Romney.:2razz:

calamity said:

When you judge a president, it is germane to the conversation to compare him to prior presidents.

Same question I asked Nota--Do you judge Obama in a vacuum?

Click to expand...

This I think is an interesting question. I do not think, at least for me that one can't help but compare this president with other presidents. But one also must realize each presidency is unique, each faces different situations and the situations that have been with us a long time also changes. So it is both, you judge on how the current president handles events and situations that were left for him and how he faces new events and issues that arise during his term.

One also has to remember the issues that are important to me may not be to someone else and vice versa. No two people will view any one president in the same light. With me I have quite a lot of presidents to compare him to as I can remember back to Eisenhower and yet each one is unique. So this president does get compared to other presidents by me in a subtle way but more so on the job he has done so far. One also has to realize he still has 3 years left. So how I or someone sees or rates this president today may change over the next three years or not.

I am sure Democrats look at President Obama in an entirely different light than do Republicans. To a lot of these party die hards it is the R and the D that matters, not the name of the president or what he has done or is doing, whether he has been good for the country as a whole or bad for it. For me it may boil down to how this president handles the issues that are important to me and how his presidency so far has effect this country.

But I do not see how anyone could rate or determine or judge any president in a vacuum. There is just too many outside factors that have to be taken into consideration.

ChrisL said:

I'm not talking about Bush. The thread is about Obama. It's also not about Clinton or Reagan. It's about President Obama. There have been more people unemployed and collecting benefits since Obama became president. How many extensions have there been to unemployment benefits again? Remember all the hype about jobs? Then all the sudden, it's healthcare. The healthcare plan has been horribly inadequate so far, people's premiums are rising not to mention the computer glitches just to gain access to sign up. I'll think of more things later.

Click to expand...

Please do. You're off to a good start. :lol:

Grand Mal said:

The same empirical data your speculations are based on, big boy. Just 'cuz I say so.

Click to expand...

that makes no sense

reinoe said:

When looking at all the other presidents we've had I can't possibly say he's below mediocre or better than average.

His initial foreign policy successes have collapsed in upon themselves. And his rollout of the PPACA is an absolute disaster. But he was still the second best option and certainly better than Romney.:2razz:

Click to expand...

I am curious. You claim to be a libertarian. what libertarian policies do you think Obama advances that romney would not have?

calamity said:

So, you got nothing to judge him by but your imagination. Nice.

Click to expand...

you are claiming that Obama's "merit" is imaginary?

I think you might be getting closer to the path of truth!

reinoe said:

When looking at all the other presidents we've had I can't possibly say he's below mediocre or better than average.

His initial foreign policy successes have collapsed in upon themselves. And his rollout of the PPACA is an absolute disaster. But he was still the second best option and certainly better than Romney.:2razz:

Click to expand...

When a president is judged, I think it's like a rule of logic that he be compared to presidents past. When we do that, we cannot help but find Obama to be a middle-of-the-pack president, no better, no worse than the average presidents we've had throughout history. But, he is far better than the previous president.

Also, important is to compare him to the two candidates he defeated in the general elections of 2008 & 2012, one of whom would still be looking for Osama Bin Laden somewhere (probably in Iraq and Afghanistan) and the other who would have us entrenched in another war, this time with Iran. Add to that the fact that had McCain won, we'd be saddled with the airhead Sarah Palin as VP, putting someone who neither speaks proper English nor is capable of critical thought one heartbeat away from the presidency.

From that perspective, Obama is looking pretty damned good.

reinoe said:

When did I say it wasn't? I was listing the generally recognized worst presidents by historians, but to people who hate Dems, every time a Dem is elected they're always worse than those.

What are you even talking about? Keep your derangement syndrome in check please. Nobody's talking about Carter or Clinton, whom I suppose you think are the two worst presidents ever after Obama.

Click to expand...

you stated the next democrat after carter, whcih was bull****, your argument stinks

calamity said:

And probably would have missed the intended target.

The Right had 7 years to get OBL. Pure fail. Obama nails him in less than three, and all the Right can do is say Obama's is a failed presidency.

shakes head

Click to expand...

Bin Laden's body was drowned in the sea, and two weeks later the team marins , participants in this operation, suddenly dies ... A little weird, huh?