• 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!

Is Obama a good president?[W:577]

Is Obama a good president?

  • Total voters
    176
ChrisL said:
I can't really say because I'm not familiar enough with his platforms regarding things like 2nd amendment issues, foreign policy, etc. I was just too young to really remember much about his presidency. That was before I was really interested in politics at all.
Click to expand...

Must be nice to be a young one. I first got interested in politics watching the 1956 Democratic and Republican Conventions on TV. Back then a convention was big news as nothing was really decided prior to the convention. There were only around 10 primaries then with the rest of the states picking who they wanted to be their parties nominee via meetings with state party leaders. Of course in 1956, everyone knew IKE would be running again, but no one knew Stevenson would be chosen to be the democratic nominee.

As a side JFK was running for VP that year and finally gave his try up at the convention when it became clear he could win the VP slot. Losing that and bowing out gracefully was probably the best thing that happen to him as he would win the 1960 nomination fairly easy over LBJ.
 
annata said:
I actually went to a very early tea party rally (before it was co-opted by Freedomworks). It was an originalist crowd.
Why i went, since I am a great believer that the demise of federalism ( to the gobble-de-gook nomenclature of "new federalism)
is a reason the fed'l gov't powers are to the point they are choking off any semblance of co-sovereignity.

For sure, there were those also concerned about the debt. And i'm sure there were a few haters in there too.
I gave up, after the tea party became an wing of Dick Armey's group.

Ther is legimate opposition to Obama, thee are racists, there are partisans. I can't really say the demographic breakdown in %'s
Click to expand...
Yeah. Like I said, I probably saw too many racists with vile pictures on posters and disgusting anti-Obama slogans in these parts early on. I'm sure they gave me a jaundiced view of all the Obama opposition which came later. Nonetheless, even without the racial considerations, I still think a lot of the Obama opposition is knee-jerk crazy, like calling him a Marxist, Fascist tax and spend liberal...statements that the facts just do not bear out.

In my view, Obama is very average. Unlike Bush, someone who wore his religion on his sleeve and steered the nation toward the cliff because of it, Obama is probably not committed enough to any one cause to actually be bad.
 
calamity said:
Yeah. Like I said, I probably saw too many racists with vile pictures on posters and disgusting anti-Obama slogans in these parts early on. I'm sure they gave me a jaundiced view of all the Obama opposition which came later. Nonetheless, even without the racial considerations, I still think a lot of the Obama opposition is knee-jerk crazy, like calling him a Marxist, Fascist tax and spend liberal...statements that the facts just do not bear out.

In my view, Obama is very average. Unlike Bush, someone who wore his religion on his sleeve and steered the nation toward the cliff because of it, Obama is probably not committed enough to any one cause to actually be bad.
Click to expand...

Well, we have yet to see with Obamacare. :mrgreen:
 
nota bene said:
Be careful...you don't want to come to the attention of the NSA or IRS. ;)
Click to expand...

I have lived 40 years in the socialist concentration camp. With such experience, I have nothing to fear here.
 
upsideguy said:
Had Yale had any indication that such would happen, surely he would not have been admitted.

Yes, Yale and all of the Ivy's screen for the upside and downside of students and are quick to dismiss for character flaws and admit for character. The Ivy's have a very complex admissions algorithm. It isn't all about raw scores. You need sufficient raw scores, rather than the best raw scores. They want diversity in the student populace as well as they want to find students that will ultimately "do the school proud".

Yale screwed up on your "buddy" (they don't get them all right); Harvard had a winner with Barack. Then again, one is Harvard and the other is not.
Click to expand...

that's moronic. There was no indication he was using coke until the summer after he graduated. and there was nothing to indicate Obama was a winner. and since my brother was an admissions officer at Yale and I recruited athletes for another Ivy, I know a bit more about the process than I suspect you do. You are just trying to cover up the fact that Obama's race is what got him where he is.

If Obama had been a white guy he never would have been president
 
calamity said:
Yeah. Like I said, I probably saw too many racists with vile pictures on posters and disgusting anti-Obama slogans in these parts early on. I'm sure they gave me a jaundiced view of all the Obama opposition which came later. Nonetheless, even without the racial considerations, I still think a lot of the Obama opposition is knee-jerk crazy, like calling him a Marxist, Fascist tax and spend liberal...statements that the facts just do not bear out.

In my view, Obama is very average. Unlike Bush, someone who wore his religion on his sleeve and steered the nation toward the cliff because of it, Obama is probably not committed enough to any one cause to actually be bad.
Click to expand...

he's got a very "progressive" agenda, he's quietly getting it done by the regulatory agencies. Do you think any more coal plants will be built?
I doubt it. I'm all for curbing greenhouse gasses, but not at a competative disadvantage.

Tuesday, the White House released its regulatory agenda for the fall of 2013. It lists hundreds of pending energy and environmental regulations being crafting by executive branch agencies, including 134 regulations from the Environmental Protection Agency alone. …

Seventy-six of the EPA’s pending regulations originate from the agency’s air and radiation office, including carbon-dioxide-emission limits on power plants.

Carbon-dioxide limits are a key part of President Barack Obama’s climate agenda. The EPA is set to set emissions limits that would effectively ban the construction of new coal-fired power plants unless they use carbon capture and sequestration technology.
Next year, the agency will move to limit emissions from existing power plants — which could put more older coal plants out of commission
Click to expand...

Pattern: Obama admin again releases regulatory agenda right before a holiday « Hot Air
 
Perotista said:
I don't think it hurt him in his standing with other world leaders. A lot of them have or had their mistresses on the side.
Click to expand...
Yes, but Clinton did more just have a mistress. Paula Jones was never his mistress, nor was Lewinsky in any real sense. Clinton v. Jones - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Regardless, Bill was the leader of the free world and any sex scandal didn't effect that one bit.
Click to expand...
It wasn't a 'sex' scandal. Itwas a matter of sexual harassment in the work place which was a big concern of the day.

The thing with Bill Clinton during the impeachment process, hearings and final senate vote from December of 1998 through February of 1999 his approval ratings started off at 63% in December and by the end of February his approval ratings rose to 66%. Perhaps those numbers reflect the witch hunt attitude of the public. I don't have the approval ratings of the Republicans in congress, but they really shrunk. In the end it was the republicans who were the villains, not Bill Clinton.
Click to expand...
The "witch hunt' was against Paula Jones, Kenneth Starr, Monica Lewinsky and Linda Tripp. Clinton his people and the media doing anything they could do vilify these people in the minds of the public, and it worked. Now it's still "all about sex' though this was never the case. It was all about sexual harassment in the work place and many people were losing their jobs because of law, with many high profile cases.
 
Grant said:
Yes, but Clinton did more just have a mistress. Paula Jones was never his mistress, nor was Lewinsky in any real sense. Clinton v. Jones - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
It wasn't a 'sex' scandal. Itwas a matter of sexual harassment in the work place which was a big concern of the day.

The "witch hunt' was against Paula Jones, Kenneth Starr, Monica Lewinsky and Linda Tripp. Clinton his people and the media doing anything they could do vilify these people in the minds of the public, and it worked. Now it's still "all about sex' though this was never the case. It was all about sexual harassment in the work place and many people were losing their jobs because of law, with many high profile cases.
Click to expand...

Hmm, at the time the Republicans were saying it was all about lying under oath. Regardless of the reality of the situation, the perception of most Americans at the time was the witch hunt was the republicans trying to bring down Bill Clinton.
 
Perotista said:
Hmm, at the time the Republicans were saying it was all about lying under oath. Regardless of the reality of the situation, the perception of most Americans at the time was the witch hunt was the republicans trying to bring down Bill Clinton.
Click to expand...

Well he did lie under oath. That only 'perception' is there because the media, then as now, creates this perception. The real 'witch hunt' was against any women who claimed Clinton had approached them in any sexual way. Do you not recall how Linda Tripp was treated? Or Paula Jones. They were badgered and vilified constantly for exposing the truth.

List of federal political sex scandals in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
annata said:
he's got a very "progressive" agenda, he's quietly getting it done by the regulatory agencies. Do you think any more coal plants will be built?
I doubt it. I'm all for curbing greenhouse gasses, but not at a competative disadvantage.
Pattern: Obama admin again releases regulatory agenda right before a holiday « Hot Air
Click to expand...
It's truly sad but the believers will say it's just good politics, and no doubt it is. Many still have that hope and change feeling though and never have noticed how their incomes have shrunk and how the wealth around DC has grown.

They not only accept crony capitalism and the rich getting richer, they actually applaud the government for sending tax payer dollars to big business. Just tell them its being used to 'save' jobs, or 'create' jobs and they'll fall into line. Barrack Obama must be laughing up his sleeve at his supporters.
 
Grant said:
Well he did lie under oath. That only 'perception' is there because the media, then as now, creates this perception. The real 'witch hunt' was against any women who claimed Clinton had approached them in any sexual way. Do you not recall how Linda Tripp was treated? Or Paula Jones. They were badgered and vilified constantly for exposing the truth.

List of federal political sex scandals in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...

I have no doubt about that. But most Americans only listen to the news or watch their local news on TV for 5 or ten minutes a day. They don't delve into the goings on in Washington, they are more interested in their favorite reality TV show, the ball game, how their kids are doing in school, etc. Their perception of events was the one that mattered. perception and the truth are at times two entirely different animals. Didn't they call it spin control back then? Clinton and company was mighty good at it.
 
annata said:
good pick up on the quote. how does one safely harness nuclear power, other then we do now? OK. another soundbite..
invest in clean coal is nice, I just don't want my electric bill tripled
Click to expand...

It was just thrown into the speech to let those who would be effected most to not be afraid. I doubt he had any intention of actually following through with any of this, as was demonstrated after his election. It's quite interesting to see his campaign speeches and then see what happened after he won. Duping the people a second time was definitely a 'fool me twice-shame on me' situation.
 
There was a rumor that Obama's wife moved out of his bedroom. She was very angry at him for improper conduct at the funeral of Mandela, where Barack was photographed with a blonde. Why we all prefer blondes?:lol:
 
Grant said:
So what?

Anyone not agreeing with leftists are right or far right. There is no middle for them.
Click to expand...

I didn't say that at all. I was merely pointing out that the majority of those who voted "No" were from the opposing party in which the President belongs. As such, their opinion on the matter can hardly be viewed as very objective now, can it?

The point I was trying to make is judge him on the merits and then maybe such a poll would seem more legitimate and less partisan.
 
Objective Voice said:
I didn't say that at all. I was merely pointing out that the majority of those who voted "No" were from the opposing party in which the President belongs. As such, their opinion on the matter can hardly be viewed as very objective now, can it?

The point I was trying to make is judge him on the merits and then maybe such a poll would seem more legitimate and less partisan.
Click to expand...
It seems people are judging him on his merits and finding them wanting. He is simply in well over his head and this has been easily seen. While he was a candidate everyone looked at him and saw what they wanted to see and not the actual candidate. He was the equivalent of Harriet Mirers to the Supreme Court.
 
Grant said:
It seems people are judging him on his merits and finding them wanting. He is simply in well over his head and this has been easily seen. While he was a candidate everyone looked at him and saw what they wanted to see and not the actual candidate. He was the equivalent of Harriet Mirers to the Supreme Court.
Click to expand...
He was articulate and sold the "hope and change" thing really well. We very much wanted that, and since he was also relatively new, we wanted him to not be from the old guard and be a change from the some old crap we've been getting.

Unfortunately, we got the same old crap. I attribute this to two things: 1) he wasn't as dedicated to change as he implied, and 2) the establishment is firmly established and doesn't move easily.
 
radcen said:
He was articulate and sold the "hope and change" thing really well. We very much wanted that, and since he was also relatively new, we wanted him to not be from the old guard and be a change from the some old crap we've been getting.

Unfortunately, we got the same old crap. I attribute this to two things: 1) he wasn't as dedicated to change as he implied, and 2) the establishment is firmly established and doesn't move easily.
Click to expand...

He still got what he wanted though in the case of Obamacare, despite the political opposition and that of the American people themselves.

He obviously doesn't understand the marketplace, or even the American people, but there were enough who shared his theories that he managed to get it done. Now it will slowly unravel, after trillions in waste, but he did accomplish that part of his agenda, as foolish as it was.
 
Grant said:
He still got what he wanted though in the case of Obamacare, despite the political opposition and that of the American people themselves.

He obviously doesn't understand the marketplace, or even the American people, but there were enough who shared his theories that he managed to get it done. Now it will slowly unravel, after trillions in waste, but he did accomplish that part of his agenda, as foolish as it was.
Click to expand...
Yes and no. He got Obamacare, but not to the extent that he wanted. I agree it will unravel, but it will unravel because it is incomplete. If he had been able to get something closer to what he wanted, it might have had a better chance at succeeding.
 
Kobie said:
I don't even think the "OBAMA HATES AMURRICA DURR DURR" line is race-baiting, it's simply buying into a load of horse**** that makes them feel better.

Barack Obama's father, who Pres. Obama barely knew, was somehow such a huge influence on young Obama's life that he adopted his same "anti-colonial Kenyan" ideals and somehow "hates America" because no legitimate reason whatsoever that's ever been presented.

There has been a concerted effort since Obama came into prominence among the right to paint him as an "other." HE'S NOT LIKE YOU. It's not race-baiting, it's xenophobia.

It's hackish behavior, to claim that because Obama doesn't share their ideals he "hates America," and there are legit criticisms of the guy the right would be better served spending their time on. But instead, it's ideological masturbation. And in a few years when they don't have Obama to kick around anymore, these guys are going to be lost.
Click to expand...

It's definitely race baiting dude. Conservatives are the best at it.

Look no further than conservative messiah Ronald "I believe in States rights" Reagan. He was a master race baiter who even put Sharpton to shame.
 
TurtleDude said:
that's moronic. There was no indication he was using coke until the summer after he graduated. and there was nothing to indicate Obama was a winner. and since my brother was an admissions officer at Yale and I recruited athletes for another Ivy, I know a bit more about the process than I suspect you do. You are just trying to cover up the fact that Obama's race is what got him where he is.

If Obama had been a white guy he never would have been president
Click to expand...

If Reagan would have been a black guy, he would have never been president.
 
radcen said:
Yes and no. He got Obamacare, but not to the extent that he wanted. I agree it will unravel, but it will unravel because it is incomplete. If he had been able to get something closer to what he wanted, it might have had a better chance at succeeding.
Click to expand...

The question is what is the definition of "succeeding". I often hear people hoping that Obamacare will be as "successful" as Medicare. Trillions in unfunded liabilities, tens of billions in fraud, abuse and waste annually. I believe Obamacare will eventually be "popular", successful? Depends on ones definition of "successful". Seems to me it's one more nail in the next generations coffin.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom