• 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
Perotista said:
We all do, I think. I wouldn't call him a bad president, just below average in my book. But we all rate presidents differently. To some all that matters is the D and the R. Others are more objective. Maybe we expect too much out of a president, perhaps to solve all the problems of the world. No one man can.
Click to expand...

There is actually a laundry list of things I don't like that Obama has done. For one, I find him to be an incredibly divisive president. Now, people can blame that on whomever, but it boils down to this, the president is supposed to be able to reach across the aisle and communicate effectively with the "other" side. Some of Obama's foreign policy I also consider quite harmful to the United States in the long run, there are multiple examples of this. These are just a couple of things.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Are you kidding me? Is that to say you will vote for whoever the demorats nominate?
Click to expand...

Please miss the point more. I've explained it three ****ing times now. If you can't tell the difference between a campaign slogan and a campaign promise, I can't help you.

And if Hillary ends up being the nominee, you can happily rest assured I will not be voting for her, which will make the second straight POTUS election I haven't voted for the "Demorat," since I also didn't vote for Obama in 2012.
 
radcen said:
Is it important that we ("we", generically overall) believed him, or is it more important whether or not HE believed it?

I believe that he indeed did believe it, and I thought him naive at the time because of it. I believe that my belief of his naivete has since been proven correct.
Click to expand...

LOL, Now that is a good line.
 
Perotista said:
We all do, I think. I wouldn't call him a bad president, just below average in my book. But we all rate presidents differently. To some all that matters is the D and the R. Others are more objective. Maybe we expect too much out of a president, perhaps to solve all the problems of the world. No one man can.
Click to expand...
Agreed.

For example, the sitting President has pretty much zero influence over gas prices, but they still get the credit if prices go down or the blame if prices go up.

The sitting President has a little more influence over the economy in general, but not near the influence that most people seem to think. It's a minor influence and usually delayed in effect.
 
Kobie said:
"Hope and change" is a campaign slogan, not a campaign promise.
Click to expand...

Please, take off the partisan blinders and see. He made a lot of promises about being transparent and being different. You want to call it a slogan. I consider it a campaign promise.
 
ChrisL said:
There is actually a laundry list of things I don't like that Obama has done. For one, I find him to be an incredibly divisive president. Now, people can blame that on whomever, but it boils down to this, the president is supposed to be able to reach across the aisle and communicate effectively with the "other" side. Some of Obama's foreign policy I also consider quite harmful to the United States in the long run, there are multiple examples of this. These are just a couple of things.
Click to expand...

I actually give Obama a full pass on this, since it's common knowledge that the Republicans agreed they wouldn't go along with him on anything. You can't "reach across the aisle" when the other side is waiting to cut your hand off for doing it. His biggest mistake was thinking he could negotiate with that bunch of political nihilists for four years.
 
ChrisL said:
Please, take off the partisan blinders and see. He made a lot of promises about being transparent and being different. You want to call it a slogan. I consider it a campaign promise.
Click to expand...

Can you read?

His stuff about transparency is a campaign promise, and one he failed miserably to uphold. "Hope and Change" is a campaign slogan. I cannot explain this any more clearly.
 
radcen said:
Is this a chicken and egg question?

Which came first? The lack of Rep cooperation, then the Executive Orders? Or, the Executive Orders?
Click to expand...

The man lacks diplomacy. :roll:
 
Kobie said:
Can you read?

His stuff about transparency is a campaign promise, and one he failed miserably to uphold. "Hope and Change" is a campaign slogan. I cannot explain this any more clearly.
Click to expand...

Are you joking here? Hope and Change was a "slogan", but it included lots of other promises. He detailed what he meant by "hope and change" many times.
 
Kobie said:
I actually give Obama a full pass on this, since it's common knowledge that the Republicans agreed they wouldn't go along with him on anything. You can't "reach across the aisle" when the other side is waiting to cut your hand off for doing it. His biggest mistake was thinking he could negotiate with that bunch of political nihilists for four years.
Click to expand...

You're still calling republicans nihilists, really? Exactly how does calling republicans nihilists make sense?
 
radcen said:
Po-tay-to, po-tah-to.

A slogan is a statement of promise/intent.
Click to expand...

NO. THEY ARE NOT THE SAME ****ING THING.

"Hope and Change." Campaign slogan. Bumper-sticker rhetoric. Just like "I Like Ike" (Eisenhower, 1952) or "It's Time To Change America" (Clinton, 1992).

"I'll be transparent." Campaign promise. One he did not live up to.
 
US Conservative said:
Its 2014, and we now see the results of over 5 years of the Obama administration. POTUS is not only the executive in chief, he is also the leader of the nation and arguably the free world. His policies, especially if they are signed into law can have profound effects on citizens, as well as people of the world.


Has Obama been a good president to this point?

BpTeGOICcAAe9sL.jpg
Click to expand...

I'm a libertarian.... Answer NO...
 
ChrisL said:
Are you joking here? Hope and Change was a "slogan", but it included lots of other promises. He detailed what he meant by "hope and change" many times.
Click to expand...

I give up. If you're going to be as purposefully obtuse as to completely ignore everything I say, then to hell with it.
 
Kobie said:
NO. THEY ARE NOT THE SAME ****ING THING.

"Hope and Change." Campaign slogan. Bumper-sticker rhetoric. Just like "I Like Ike" (Eisenhower, 1952) or "It's Time To Change America" (Clinton, 1992).

"I'll be transparent." Campaign promise. One he did not live up to.
Click to expand...

You are just splitting hairs here. :roll:
 
Kobie said:
I give up. If you're going to be as purposefully obtuse as to completely ignore everything I say, then to hell with it.
Click to expand...

Stop posting silly things then. You know VERY WELL what we are referring to when we say "hope and change." There was other "rhetoric" that went along with that "campaign slogan."
 
ChrisL said:
There is actually a laundry list of things I don't like that Obama has done. For one, I find him to be an incredibly divisive president. Now, people can blame that on whomever, but it boils down to this, the president is supposed to be able to reach across the aisle and communicate effectively with the "other" side. Some of Obama's foreign policy I also consider quite harmful to the United States in the long run, there are multiple examples of this. These are just a couple of things.
Click to expand...

I noticed that and spoke on these pages of DP many times about Obama refusing to work with those across the aisle. Eisenhower worked with LBJ, then senate majority leader to get his agenda accomplished. JFK and LBJ both worked with Everit Dirksen, then Republican Minority leader to accomplish the same. Reagan and Tip O'Neal, those two working together are stuff of legends. Obama has no one on the other side of the aisle he can turn to when the going gets tough. He didn't need a single Republican vote in his first two years and that may have spoiled him. Who knows.

On foreign policy, sometimes it does seem he doesn't know what he is doing. Perhaps that is because he has surrounded himself with the wrong type of advisers or he isn't listening to them. I just think Obama is a domestic policy type of guy who really doesn't want to be bothered with the foreign aspect of being president. That is just my impression.
 
Perotista said:
I noticed that and spoke on these pages of DP many times about Obama refusing to work with those across the aisle. Eisenhower worked with LBJ, then senate majority leader to get his agenda accomplished. JFK and LBJ both worked with Everit Dirksen, then Republican Minority leader to accomplish the same. Reagan and Tip O'Neal, those two working together are stuff of legends. Obama has no one on the other side of the aisle he can turn to when the going gets tough. He didn't need a single Republican vote in his first two years and that may have spoiled him. Who knows.

On foreign policy, sometimes it does seem he doesn't know what he is doing. Perhaps that is because he has surrounded himself with the wrong type of advisers or he isn't listening to them. I just think Obama is a domestic policy type of guy who really doesn't want to be bothered with the foreign aspect of being president. That is just my impression.
Click to expand...

I'll never forget when he said to John McCain, something on the idea of "well, I'm the president, not you." It just struck me as EXTREMELY arrogant, in bad taste for a sitting president, and very juvenile.

To be clear, this was during his first term when there were some televised arguments about health care. The republicans were trying to introduce their plan at the time.
 
Kobie said:
NO. THEY ARE NOT THE SAME ****ING THING.

"Hope and Change." Campaign slogan. Bumper-sticker rhetoric. Just like "I Like Ike" (Eisenhower, 1952) or "It's Time To Change America" (Clinton, 1992).

"I'll be transparent." Campaign promise. One he did not live up to.
Click to expand...
No, not necessarily. A slogan *can be* innocuous, yes, as "I Like Ike" was. All it was was a way to keep Ike's name relevant, and all it meant was a person indicating their support of the candidate, nothing more. A slogan such as "Hope and Change" has meaning, and is more of a promise. Words have meaning regardless of whether they're in a speech or on a bumper sticker.
 
radcen said:
No, not necessarily. A slogan *can be* innocuous, yes, as "I Like Ike" was. All it was was a way to keep Ike's name relevant, and all it meant was a person indicating their support of the candidate, nothing more. A slogan such as "Hope and Change" has meaning, and is more of a promise. Words have meaning regardless of whether they're in a speech or on a bumper sticker.
Click to expand...

Why is he E-yelling at you anyway? :lol: Are some of these people SO invested in Obama? He's just another crappy politician, and people need to come to terms with that.
 
ChrisL said:
Stop posting silly things then. You know VERY WELL what we are referring to when we say "hope and change." There was other "rhetoric" that went along with that "campaign slogan."
Click to expand...

OK, I'll explain it AGAIN.

"Hope and Change" is a SLOGAN. It looks nice on a t-shirt, or a bumper sticker, or a campaign banner.

"I'll run the most transparent administration in history" or "I'll close Guantanamo Bay" is a campaign PROMISE. Ones he didn't live up to. How is this not clear?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom