• 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 the US perceived as weaker under the Obama administration?

Is the US perceived as weaker in influence under Obama?


  • Total voters
    57
As in the early pre WW l 1900's as in "Speak softly but carry a big stick." ?

The world did glaze it's eyes upon America back then as being a country to be held in awe.

Best approach ever. Reason with the reasonable but be ready to measure sticks with the unreasonable.
 
The countries in the mid-east laugh at us....They don't fear Obama at all like the did President Bush
Yeah. They probably thought that Bill Clinton was in charge when they hit the WTC in New York and the Pentagon in DC, right? :roll:
 
I'd say the nadir was the second term of Bush. Perception of toughness has increased slightly since then.
 
As in the early pre WW l 1900's as in "Speak softly but carry a big stick." ?

The world did glaze it's eyes upon America back then as being a country to be held in awe.

i'm fine with just being a country. the rest of the world certainly isn't "holding us in awe" right now, yet we're spending tons of money being the pro bono first world army.

we can maintain a formidable peacetime arsenal on much less than what we're currently spending. then we can reallocate resources to address domestic issues.
 
Yeah. They probably thought that Bill Clinton was in charge when they hit the WTC in New York and the Pentagon in DC, right? :roll:




Some people will always be out of touch with reality.


Their partisan filters won't let reality seep through.
 
Bush made it stronger for the US to be perceived weaker under the Obama administration.




Bush helped Iran and hurt the USA by converting Iraq from a Sunni-controlled to a Shia-controlled nation.

But I don't expect you to understand this.
 
Ask Osama bin DEAD Laden about that, or all other terrorists killed in the past few years. Or Anwar Al-Awaki. Or Al-Rahman and all the other terrorist leaders killed or captured under Obama.

Geeee there are more Bin Ladens in Iraq now than ever before and growing around the world, like Lybia who killed four of our own at our embassy. However according to Obama AQ is Decimated
 
Bush helped Iran and hurt the USA by converting Iraq from a Sunni-controlled to a Shia-controlled nation.

But I don't expect you to understand this.

Did they hold elections in Iraq?
 
Bush helped Iran and hurt the USA by converting Iraq from a Sunni-controlled to a Shia-controlled nation.

But I don't expect you to understand this.

Problem is Sn, Iraq was always a Shia-majority country. The US just took away the Sunni dictatorship. That act has led to a degree of anarchy and the domination of Iraqi politics by Shias, but perhaps those two things were somewhat inevitable in the longer term anyway.
 
Bush helped Iran and hurt the USA by converting Iraq from a Sunni-controlled to a Shia-controlled nation.

But I don't expect you to understand this.

Sunni and Shia lived in peace before the US invasion.
 
Sunni and Shia lived in peace before the US invasion.

I think the Kurds and Marsh Arabs might question how peaceable pre-invasion Iraq really was. The repression of minority groups and communities may not have been directly rationalised using religious terminology, but there really wasn't anything very peaceable about Ba'athist Iraq.
 
That is a nasty thing to say. True or not. ;)

what is nasty? That I think how independents view the president is more important than how Republicans or Democrats? It is at least when it comes to elections. It is also true I think in today's polarized world of politics where what ever the president does or what stance he takes on the issue 80% of all Republicans will be against him or the stance only because he is a Democrat and 80% of all Democrats will be for him or the stance because he is a Democrats. The ACA is the same way. The republicans are oppose to it by a 89-9 margin, the Democrats are all for it by a 80-18 margin, Independents are against it 60-38. So one can safely assume that if one is a Republican, he is against the ACA, if one is a Democrat he is for the ACA, so it is up to the independents to decide if the ACA is good or bad.

Name the issue and you will get abut the same bread down by party regardless of the issue. So to find out the true feelings of Americans, one has to look at independents and throw the two parties out of the mix.
 
Geeee there are more Bin Ladens in Iraq now than ever before and growing around the world, like Lybia who killed four of our own at our embassy. However according to Obama AQ is Decimated

Try and keep things correct, firstly Obama said that the core leadership has been decimated during debates with Mitt Romney and later he said:

while “core al-Qaeda is on its heels, has been decimated,” it has “metastasized” into regional groups that threaten the United States on a smaller scale than the original terror organization.

Also, just because groups call themselves or operate in civil war struggles under the name Al Qaeda, does not make them terrorist groups that belong to the core terrorist organization called Al Qaeda.
 
obama-saul-loeb-afp-getty-images-080113-lede_0.jpg


As the worlds superpower, this is a question worth being asked.

Internationally are we declining in influence on the world stage?

Do our enemies, rivals, and allies see us as weaker now?

Are we seen as stronger for having Obama as POTUS or are we seen as weaker since Bush's Presidency?

07iht-edvote07-articleLarge-v2.gif
I don't think you're in danger of being invaded any time soon.

Economically and politically, we could argue forever. There's no definitive baseline for comparison. The question is too ambiguous.
 
Plenty of polls have been done-Obama has a lower approval than Bush, even in europe and the middle east. But I dont think its just partisan, if it was, the results of those polls wouldnt be as lop sided as they are.

We just had a poll posted about 10 most admired people in the world by nation. It was brought in by a CON because Oxcy Rush beat Hillary in the USofA poll. I'm sure you saw it. In EVERY nation BushII didn't make the list, any list, outside the USofA. In the UK where he was much 'admired' and they were our partner in the Iraq debacle BushII couldn't break the top 30... :roll:

If you define 'weaker' as not reckless then yeah ya got it Sparky!

Obama seems damned if he does and damned if he doesn't when it comes to overseas intervention. While some mindless hawks rant about Putin in Syria, the result is Putin backed down and world war was averted- even though a long line of CONS tried to make the incident out to what happened in Aug 1914.

Obama isn't weak, he just isn't a shoot from the lip, ex-cheerleader, legacy bratt.
 
what is nasty? That I think how independents view the president is more important than how Republicans or Democrats? It is at least when it comes to elections. It is also true I think in today's polarized world of politics where what ever the president does or what stance he takes on the issue 80% of all Republicans will be against him or the stance only because he is a Democrat and 80% of all Democrats will be for him or the stance because he is a Democrats. The ACA is the same way. The republicans are oppose to it by a 89-9 margin, the Democrats are all for it by a 80-18 margin, Independents are against it 60-38. So one can safely assume that if one is a Republican, he is against the ACA, if one is a Democrat he is for the ACA, so it is up to the independents to decide if the ACA is good or bad.

Name the issue and you will get abut the same bread down by party regardless of the issue. So to find out the true feelings of Americans, one has to look at independents and throw the two parties out of the mix.

So sad. But so the voter seems to be. On the other hand it gives the system a higher level of stability.
 
So sad. But so the voter seems to be. On the other hand it gives the system a higher level of stability.

I don't think so. What this polarization has caused is both parties to lose members and the number of independents to climb. According to Gallup 61% of all Americans view the Republican Party in an unfavorable light. 54% of all Americans view the Democratic Party in an unfavorable light. 68% o Independents dislike Republicans and 64% dislike the Democratic Party. Why is this important and how might it lead to instability. Back in 2005 only 30% of the electorate identified themselves as independents, today that number has risen to 45%, as of Jan 8, 2004. The affiliation of the two major parties has dropped from 67% back in 2005 to 53% today.

We have had two wild swings in congress, 2006 and 2010 in less than ten years and 2014 is looking like another wild swing. I call these sea change elections. They happen though out history but 3 in a span of 8 years is unheard of. These types of election occurred in 1932, 1948 and 1994. 3 sea change election in 60 years vs. 3 in 8 years.
 
I had to click on "certainly."

but we are talking perception here.

We cannot deny that Obama has presented himself globally as a "kinder, gentler," president. Hell, he even won peace prizes. He ranked second, only behind Pope Francis, in a recent approval poll. Some folks think that the neocon approach of war-dogging and sword rattling as signs of strength. So, in that way, to these kind of people, Obama is certainly "making us look weak."

Again, perception.

But in real world, Obama is one terrorist killing mo' fo'. He has the balls of King Kong and America's military might remains second to none, worldwide. But that's just reality. And the poll is about perception.

I am reminded of an old saying, "Walk softly and carry a big stick."
 
There's not much peace going on in Iraq now, eh?

I have long said that there was a seething civil war brewing in Iraq. It was just a matter of time.

I'm sure the Iraqi's would have no objection to postponing this civil war as long as Uncle Sam kept trucking in semi-trailer loads of hundred dollar bills.

But, sooner or later, the trucks had to stop and the US has to leave. The civil war is inevitable. It was just a question of when.
 
I have long said that there was a seething civil war brewing in Iraq. It was just a matter of time.

I'm sure the Iraqi's would have no objection to postponing this civil war as long as Uncle Sam kept trucking in semi-trailer loads of hundred dollar bills.

But, sooner or later, the trucks had to stop and the US has to leave. The civil war is inevitable. It was just a question of when.




I totally agree.

Not trying to steal your thunder, but I also saw this coming years ago.

This will not end soon, and it certainly won't end well.
 
I hate it to break it to the OP, but childish aggressive foreign policy won't make his penis any less embarrassing. Foreign policy is not decided by insecure bluster, its must be guided by realpolitik. It requires a careful and pragmatic analysis of geography, economics, technology, religion, political climates, military strength and many other factors. History is littered with the corpses of idiots who though that acting like a tough guy is a replacement for the careful application of true power.
 
I totally agree.

Not trying to steal your thunder, but I also saw this coming years ago.

This will not end soon, and it certainly won't end well.

Agreed. Not only did I see it coming, I actually spoke about it being the inevitable, right here at Debate Politics, many years ago.

When the majority is oppressed by a minority with an iron glove and a bloody sword, payback is just a matter of time.
 
Back
Top Bottom