• 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!

Has Obama been a good President?

Has Obama been a good President?


  • Total voters
    75
Yeah, I thought about that when I was commenting. But I'd say the only major difference is that things happen MUCH more quickly. And even that is still often just a battlefield consideration. The type of judgements involved at a political level have NOT changed, imo. Roman, Greek, Egyptian, Mesopotamian, as far back as you can go, it's political judgement about how people react to things and how societies function that's required.

Now I'm sure that stuff has changed too — a modern, industrial society probably doesn't react to things the way an ancient, agrarian one does. But you yerself point to Sun Tzu. His wisdom, insight, whatever you call it, is rightly held up as timeless. Btw, I did study his work years ago in school, and I would agree that, like any great philosophical treatise, it's the kind of thing that one can benefit from reviewing and contemplating repeatedly.

I trained to be a public policy analyst, but along the way I studied a LOT of history and philosophy, and it seems like I keep going back to that, rather than economic and statistical models, in my efforts to understand things. Lately I've been reviewing some of my notes on the writings of Marcus Aurelius, particularly his Meditations, written while campaigning.

"Remember that to change thy opinion and to follow him who corrects thy error is as consistent with freedom as it is to persist in thy error."

"Thou sufferest this justly: for thou choosest rather to become good to-morrow than to be good to-day."​

>>back in those days, more men WERE actually familiar with how to wage and manage a war. It was just the way things were back then when men were expected to fight at a moment's notice. He was probably very familiar with the operations of the military for the times.

I don't agree. I'd say they were much more focused on scratching a living in agriculture. The regular Army was quite small and my guess is that militias were not very organized or proficient. Lincoln was a lawyer and a politician. I expect he was quite unfamiliar with fighting and managing a war.

>>I believe that politics are what loses wars. I don't believe America will ever win another war if we don't learn from our mistakes. I've read and seen documentaries about Vietnam, and how mistakes were made because of the fact that it was a "political" war.

I'd say all wars are political. Bad politics makes for bad wars.

>>About TARP, I thought we should have let those companies claim bankruptcy. Though it would have been painful, I think it would have reeked less havoc on the economy in the long run.

In my view, without TARP there was a large risk of a cascading collapse of the financial system and unimaginable damage.

Well, although I can agree with some of your finer points (very good ones BTW), I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree about Obama presidency legacy. :)
 
No, he's been mediocre. No better or worse than Reagan and Carter, but superior to W. Bush and his father.
 
Last edited:
With congressional approval.

No, congressional buck passing. They merely said he could decide. If he chose no, they would not have overrode his decision. So, this means he was the decider.
 
The obvious answer anyone who has any historical and political perspective of the US.....is YES.

This is true not just in the shear number of those that oppose him with intense dislike/hatred, but the type of people that hate him. We are talking about the extreme US RW, the vast numbers of militant, armed to the teeth groups that were identified by the Bush administration at the the end of W's last term. The US right wing is is much more organized because that is the very nature of right-wing authoritarianism. They also have no qualms about displaying the level of militancy they hold to, from the gun toting at numerous bagger protests to their gatherings at Clive Bundy's. Again, it is not just the number, it is the intensity of it made up by gun toting racists that can barely contain themselves with the thought of a Black man in the White House.

Stormfront, the vast numbers of militias, the border vigilantes, they are barometers of the intensity of the hatred. It was bad during Clinton, the groups spawned the OKC bombing, and I think the only reason we have not seen any really big events like that is because of the expanded surveillance keeping both international and domestic terrorism in check.
As opposed to the obvious extreme US LW. :roll:
 
Obama voted against the Iraq invasion. Seems he was the leader you needed, after all.

Obama was a state senator in Illinois in 2002 when they voted on the Iraq invasion. No, he didn't vote "against the Iraq invasion". The Illinois state senate didn't have the opportunity to vote either way.
 
Obama was a state senator in Illinois in 2002 when they voted on the Iraq invasion. No, he didn't vote "against the Iraq invasion". The Illinois state senate didn't have the opportunity to vote either way.

Okay, but he was against it from the beginning.

Barack Obama (who went on to win the election) was not a senator at the time of the voting of the Iraq War Resolution, but has repeatedly voiced his disapproval of it both before and during his senatorship, saying at an anti war rally in Chicago on October 2, 2002: "I am not opposed to all wars. I’m opposed to dumb wars."
 
Obama was a state senator in Illinois in 2002 when they voted on the Iraq invasion. No, he didn't vote "against the Iraq invasion". The Illinois state senate didn't have the opportunity to vote either way.

True, but he did oppose it and his voting record once elected to the US Senate supports this thesis.

HowStuffWorks "Voting Record of Barack Obama: National Security and the Economy"

*In 2007, Obama voted in favor of restoring habeas corpus to detainees in American custody (S. Amendment 2022) [source: Project Vote Smart].

*He voted against a successful bill in 2007 which funded the Iraq War without including a timetable for withdrawal (H.R. 2206) [source: The Washington Post].
In 2007, he voted against another successful bill which gave $120 billion in funding for the Iraq War (vote 181), but voted for two different votes on a separate failed bill (HR 1591), which appropriated similar amounts for the Iraq War but included timetables for American troop withdrawals [source: The Washington Post].

*He voted in favor of HR 4939 in 2006, which granted $67 billion in emergency funding to the Department of Defense [source: Obama Senate].

*Obama voted against the Military Commissions Act of 2006, (S. 3930) which granted legal immunity for CIA officials involved in acts of torture, outlawed certain acts of torture by U.S. agents, and barred detainees labeled enemy combatants from protesting their incarceration. He voted in favor of an amended version of this bill (S. Amdt. 5095), which included Congressional oversight of some CIA programs [source: *U.S. Senate].
 
Okay, but he was against it from the beginning.

Your statement that Obama voted against the Iraq invasion was false.

I was against Iraq too. That's irrelevant. Neither Obama nor I voted against the invasion.
 
Your statement that Obama voted against the Iraq invasion was false.

I was against Iraq too. That's irrelevant. Neither Obama nor I voted against the invasion.

I'm not an Obamatologist, and I occasionally make mistakes. Thanks for correcting me!
 
Has Obama been a good president to this point?

Not a fan of a lot of his policies. What I think will be the thing that people remember the most about this administration isn't the "scandals" but rather the inaction and/or lack of answers that have come from most of them.

Still waiting on someone to answer for Solyndra and the IRS.

A lot of questions still remain about Benghazi.

It seems that the President and those closest to him are all for the photo opp and media attention when it is something that will put them in a positive light but yet are pretty much MIA when it is something that could have a negative affect on the admin.
 
1.Not a fan of a lot of his policies. What I think will be the thing that people remember the most about this administration isn't the "scandals" but rather the inaction and/or lack of answers that have come from most of them.

2.Still waiting on someone to answer for Solyndra and the IRS.

A lot of questions still remain about Benghazi.

3. It seems that the President and those closest to him are all for the photo opp and media attention when it is something that will put them in a positive light but yet are pretty much MIA when it is something that could have a negative affect on the admin.
1. So far so good. I'm not a fan of many of his policies either. And, inaction is definitely an Obama trait. However, scandals are not one of the issues lacking action. His have been some of the least serious scandals plaguing administrations in recent history.
Richard Nixon had the Watergate scandal. Ronald Reagan had Iran-Contra. Bill Clinton had the Monica Lewinsky affair. George Bush had controversies over warrantless wiretapping, response to Hurricane Katrina, and Plamegate. Warren G. Harding apparently wasn't a trendsetter in the 1920s with the Teapot Dome Scandal, which occurred during his first term (which he didn't complete ... Harding died in August 1923 of a heart attack).
President Obama appears to be following trend of scandal-plagued second terms | cleveland.com
Obama's stuff pales in comparison.

2. Solyndra, IRS and Benghazi...seriously? Come on. There is not a whole lot of there there, IMO. Ask Darrel Issa---lord knows he could not prove a thing.

3. True
 
dang the bro killed bin laden (biggest criminal since hitler to america) and that aint good enough!!!!! Ran more illegals out than any president!!! Got women equal pay in gov jobs!!! Obama is hated because of his color first and being a demo second....no reason to put our heads in the sand about it

race card !!!!!!! Drink !!!!!!!!
 
Still waiting on someone to answer for Solyndra and the IRS.

I might be able to help you on those. The Energy Department's loan guarantee program that Solyndra participated in was passed by a Republican-controlled Congress and signed by President Bush. The vast majority of the companies that have participated in the program are profitable. The Solyndra application was on its way to being approved when Bush left office. The last-minute delay wasn't related to technology or manufacturing, but rather marketing.

The DOE Credit Committee of career department officials cautioned in January 2009 that while the "project appears to have merit," an independent marketing assessment was required. — "One Market Report Could Hold Clues to Solyndra's Demise," NYT, Sept 29, 2011​

The company was doing very well when the loan guarantee was awarded. ("ales jumped from $6 million in 2008 to $100 million in 2009.") But the Chinese government decided to invest heavily in photovoltaic systems, and this seriously undermined Solyndra's competitiveness.

By the first half of 2009, some 50 Chinese companies were planning or constructing polycrystalline silicon production lines with an investment of more than $14 billion, according to a research report published in China. It predicted China's total production capability would eventually exceed two times annual demand in the world. … The price of polysilicon fell from $475 per kilogram in February 2008 to $73 per kilogram in May 2009, according to Bloomberg New Energy Finance.​

At the same time, the company's sales were hurt by the effects that the worldwide economic slowdown had on European countries, its biggest customers. These factors combined to put it out of business.


On the other "scandal," the office in the IRS that handles applications for tax-exempt status appears to have acted improperly in its review of requests by conservative groups. One point that doesn't matter much to me is that no direct link to the WH has been established. It's Obama's administration, so he's responsible. But do you really think these groups are "educational" and not "political"? The law as written says they can't be political at all. The agency decided back in the 1950s that they needed to be "primarily" educational. If Congress had any sense, they'd tell the IRS to forget that stupid revision and just enforce the law.

Obviously, I understand that everyone wants to be, and is legally entitled to be, treated equally. And it does seem likely that there was partisanship involved in the way conservative groups were treated. But consider a couple of things: these applications were for 501(c)(4) status. Donations to those organizations "generally are not deductible as charitable contributions for federal income tax purposes." (IRS) So failing to gain status would not have made it easier for them to raise money from people looking to deduct the donation on their taxes. These groups just didn't want be required to disclose the names of donors and the amounts they donated. Guess why. They also wanted to avoid federal income tax liability. And why is that? Here's a clue:

According to the [2013] year-end spending report filed with the Federal Election Commission, of the $6,405,087 that the group (Tea Party Patriots Citizens Fund) has raised since early last year, $5,335,162 has been spent, and all of it has been put toward operating expenditures. — Tea party groups are making and spending millions, but not on candidates

That's the scandal I'd be concerned with if I'd made a donation to that group. They spend all the money on administrative overhead and pass nothing along to candidates. They know people will contribute, and it's just a way for them to collect big salaries and hire their friends as consultants, office workers, field organizers, etc. It's an industry, and they benefit if people think that commie, criminal Obama and his gang of crooks are interfering with democracy.


>>A lot of questions still remain about Benghazi.

Yeah, like why has the GOP allowed Issa the Incompetent Clown to tie up an important congressional committee with fundraising efforts?
 
Bush lied to America and caused many people to die. Obama tried to give Americans affordable health care.

Lets call it a wash, eh?

Except that Bush did not lie. Liberals admitting that Bush did not lie would be a big step in growing up.
 
Who cares what CNN says? And you need to learn the difference between intel that turned out inaccurate and lying.

Cherry picking intel and pushing through garbage data you know to be spurious, at best, is called intellectual dishonesty---same thing as lying.
 
Cherry picking intel and pushing through garbage data you know to be spurious, at best, is called intellectual dishonesty---same thing as lying.

Then every single progressive that you progressives adore that voted for approving the War in Iraq must be intellectually dishonest liarts, huh? That includes Hillary Clinton and Nancy(we have to pass it to see what's in it)Pelosi.
 
Then every single progressive that you progressives adore that voted for approving the War in Iraq must be intellectually dishonest liarts, huh? That includes Hillary Clinton and Nancy(we have to pass it to see what's in it)Pelosi.

Mistake No. 1: Thinking that all liberals (or "progressives" or whatever nonsense you're calling them now) "adores" Pelosi and Clinton.
 
Mistake No. 1: Thinking that all liberals (or "progressives" or whatever nonsense you're calling them now) "adores" Pelosi and Clinton.

Most of you do.
 
Back
Top Bottom