• 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
Being able to suss Obama from day 1 shows great perspicacity, and history has borne it out.
Vindication despite the deadender fanboys.
 
Being able to suss Obama from day 1 shows great perspicacity, and history has borne it out.
Vindication despite the deadender fanboys.

In other words, you're fully in favor of intractable obstructionism.
 
In other words, you're fully in favor of intractable obstructionism.

It depends on what the other side is offering if I'm in favor of obstruction. As it stands, Obama and the democrats have deserved to get nothing for their efforts. Offer something that isn't unconstitutional tripe and maybe we can talk.
 
Someone mentioned obstructionism ...

harry reid -  with obama - frame 2.jpg
 
It depends on what the other side is offering if I'm in favor of obstruction. As it stands, Obama and the democrats have deserved to get nothing for their efforts. Offer something that isn't unconstitutional tripe and maybe we can talk.

Partisans' definition of "constitutional" tends to change depending on the party in the Oval Office.
 
Great, now we're getting somewhere. I agree with that too. The republicans have been obstructionists, but I believe it is part of the President's job to quell that, not to add fuel to the fire for the sake of party politics. His foremost concern should be what is best for the country as a WHOLE.

What has the president done to add fuel to the fire of obstructionism? Just curious.
 
Partisans' definition of "constitutional" tends to change depending on the party in the Oval Office.

Having our political system monopolized by the "right" or the "left" is the biggest problem we have IMO. I don't believe either party represents MOST Americans' interests. It's big money politics, and neither of them really care about America, only their parties and who is going to line their pockets.
 
What has the president done to add fuel to the fire of obstructionism? Just curious.

His complete attitude towards the other party is unacceptable for a sitting president. His dismissive attitude of them is just ONE example of many.
 
1. Other presidents have been able to cross this gap and get things accomplished. No, Obama's own behavior and arrogance plays a role in this as much as the republicans own arrogance.
2. No, this last fiasco with releasing the detainees was done without the approval of Congress, as were several other actions IIRC. Especially this newest event rests squarely on the shoulders of Obama.
3. I've never seen a sitting president display such blatant arrogance towards the opposing party, as well as all who disagree with his idealistic views.

1. No, it doesn't. I promise you it doesn't, and that in the real world of real power and real politics that it never could. Despite what the media tells you, the dramas and personalities of politics have almost nothing to do with the realities of power. I wouldn't lie about that.

2. There are no good options, either in terms of America's own safety and Obama's personal political interests. Obama simply chose one; it didn't really matter which because they all sucked completely. If he allowed the soldier to die or pursued several other options, Republicans would have criticized him just as harshly because its 100% in their political interest to undermine Obama as leader.

(3) Then you aren't paying attention, because every Republican from Capital Hill the to the meanest rural small town dishes and out and returns ideological arrogance three-fold. The entire economy of right-wing opinion pundit entertainment relies and depends on the arrogance of the core personalities in order to generate the cash flow needed to get the pay checks they need to feed their families. 'Arrogance' is a great source of wealth.

In both cases, the arrogance is irrelevant except as a sign of something deeper and more evil in human nature.
 
Last edited:
His complete attitude towards the other party is unacceptable for a sitting president. His dismissive attitude of them is just ONE example of many.

Not sure what you mean. Obama came in with an agenda to implement Republican-based ideas for healthcare reform, rejecting the liberals' pleas for socialized medicine. When Bohener negotiated with the president, he generally got most of what he wanted for the GOP. On national security, Obama continued with much of the same policies as the previous administration.
 
1. No, it doesn't. I promise you it doesn't, and that in the real world of real power and real politics that it never could. Despite what the media tells you, the dramas and personalities of politics have almost nothing to do with the realities of power. I wouldn't lie about that.

2. There are no good options, either in terms of America's own safety and Obama's personal political interests. Obama simply chose one; it didn't really matter which because they all sucked completely.

(3) Then you aren't paying attention, because every Republican from Capital Hill the to the meanest rural small town dishes and out and returns ideological arrogance three-fold. The entire economy of right-wing opinion pundit entertainment relies and depends on the arrogance of the core personalities.

1. Lol. The media? I've seen it myself, thank you very much. I believe it most certainly does. Obama is dismissive towards anyone who disagrees with him. Do you remember the Joe the Plumber fiasco? There is an example of him treating a CITIZEN with extreme arrogance and dismissal. That is wrong. I've never seen such arrogance on display in my life from a sitting president. There are other examples too that I can come up with if I have to.
2. This is nothing but making excuses for a terrible decision IMO.
3. Of course, and as I have stated NUMEROUS times, for ME a GOOD president would be able to overcome these barriers and get things accomplished in a bipartisan manner. So you can understand why I don't think he is a good president.
 
Not sure what you mean. Obama came in with an agenda to implement Republican-based ideas for healthcare reform, rejecting the liberals' pleas for socialized medicine. When Bohener negotiated with the president, he generally got most of what he wanted for the GOP. On national security, Obama continued with much of the same policies as the previous administration.

This is not true at all. The republicans, and a large portion of America, rejected Obamacare.
 
This is not true at all. The republicans, and a large portion of America, rejected Obamacare.

I understand that they rejected their own health care ideas when Obama decided to implement them. That's was the name of the game. If Obama is for it, they are against it.
 
I'll consider the goalposts moved.

Campaign slogans CAN be based on a promise; that does not mean that the slogan IS the promise.

I have explained the difference several times.
I understand your point, have since you first said it, and your point is incorrect. Several attempts at explanation do not automatically equate to correct premise.

Though now it seems you're backtracking and accepting that a slogan and promise can be one and the same.
 
I understand that they rejected their own health care ideas when Obama decided to implement them. That's was the name of the game. If Obama is for it, they are against it.

When was tossing out all actuarial health risk factors (except for age and tobacco use) their idea?
 
When was tossing out all actuarial health risk factors (except for age and tobacco use) their idea?

The major point of opposition with Obamacare was the personal mandate, a wholly Republican concept designed to enforce personal responsibility.
 
The major point of opposition with Obamacare was the personal mandate, a wholly Republican concept designed to enforce personal responsibility.

Wrong. The major point of PPACA opposition was the complete federal control of "private" medical care insurance policy content. Even if you like your plan then you must kiss it goodbye and replace it with a federally approved plan was the reality yet not the promising sales slogan used. ;)
 
I understand that they rejected their own health care ideas when Obama decided to implement them. That's was the name of the game. If Obama is for it, they are against it.

The other side of the coin is true also. Actually the idea of the ACA can be traced back to JFK, private insurance vs. government run for medicare.
 
1. Lol. The media? I've seen it myself, thank you very much. I believe it most certainly does. Obama is dismissive towards anyone who disagrees with him. Do you remember the Joe the Plumber fiasco? There is an example of him treating a CITIZEN with extreme arrogance and dismissal. That is wrong. I've never seen such arrogance on display in my life from a sitting president. There are other examples too that I can come up with if I have to.
2. This is nothing but making excuses for a terrible decision IMO.
3. Of course, and as I have stated NUMEROUS times, for ME a GOOD president would be able to overcome these barriers and get things accomplished in a bipartisan manner. So you can understand why I don't think he is a good president.

(1) Not sure what you expect. When Bush was challenged on the wisdom of his policies, he angrily and famously declared, "I am the decider." And he was correct to do so then, as Obama was with Joe the Plumber; in a functioning democratic society, every single citizen is morally obligated to show great respect and deference to the elected leader by virtue of the election. If they don't, then the leader can't work, and people stop believing in democracy.

(2) Then you'll be able to explain in very clear terms what the obviously correct decision was, the one that Obama missed, although I promise, there's nothing you can say that I can't point out the flaws; Obama has thousands of political analysts and experts to tell him the right thing to do and weigh the positive and negative aspects of each decision. If they couldn't collectively come up with a better, problem free solution, it is unlikely any one this board will do better.

(3) You might as well say Obama should breathe and space fly to the moon like Supermen. The *only way* to overcome partisan dysfunction is by making it more worthwhile for the person who opposes you to cooperate with you instead. That, or destroying them and eradicating or absorbing their power base for yourself. Neither the Obama or the Democrats have *anything* that could possibly sway the Republicans to cooperate with them for 1000 reasons; the first and most important is that it makes the Democrats *look better* than the Republicans that a Democratic president was able unify a divisive Washington. That single reason by itself is good enough reason for no Republican to ever cooperate with Obama if they can possibly avoid it. Then there are 999+ nearly valid reasons, all rooted in, again, the realities of power.

One aspect of that reality is corporate special interest. Huge industries like pharmaceuticals or energy have lobbying groups that represent their interests in both major political parties, but the Republicans especially; the economic and political situation might get outside their control of politicians like Obama suddenly started exercising political and legal agency that got in the way of plans or policies they have spent tens and hundreds of billions of dollars over the decades to make happen. Therefore, they request the Republicans to resist Obama and ensure that he remains manageable and pliable to their needs; the health care industry did this to Obama during health care reform by telling Democrats under their influence to fight for a plan that served the needs of the insurance lobby, rather than

When you're up against that kind of money, there are two choices: buy them out or destroy them. Neither is really an option for Obama, so he has to endure them.
 
Well, Obama really never had a chance at being a good, or even mediocre President. He was doomed from the beginning. The man simply is not qualified to be POTUS.

Whatever agenda he has, destroy the fundamentals and change this country, or look to the Constitution and support it's protections of our freedoms, he was destined to fail. He was a community organizer that just doesn't have the required experience to run a country. It is beyond me how those that voted for him did not realize that they were putting a novice in office. If you set up things to fail, you have no business complaining about it.

Plus, he came into a situation that was way, way over his head. The economy was in trouble, Bush and Congress went the wrong way, and he just put his foot on the gas pedal with the debt. The sad thing is, there was a template to follow which worked in the past.

After the disastrous Carter Presidency, Reagan was able to guide the country to prosperity. Obama did the exact opposite. He had the solution sitting right in front of him and couldn't see it. That is what a novice does.
 
Wrong. The major point of PPACA opposition was the complete federal control of "private" medical care insurance policy content. Even if you like your plan then you must kiss it goodbye and replace it with a federally approved plan was the reality yet not the promising sales slogan used. ;)

It's true that Obamacare raised the quality of health insurance for everyone, but I've rarely seen increased minimum standards brought up as a concern by Republicans. When asked about what parts of the law they'd change, they ambiguously say that there are other ways to achieve the same results (but never specify them).
 
Well, Obama really never had a chance at being a good, or even mediocre President. He was doomed from the beginning. The man simply is not qualified to be POTUS.

Whatever agenda he has, destroy the fundamentals and change this country, or look to the Constitution and support it's protections of our freedoms, he was destined to fail. He was a community organizer that just doesn't have the required experience to run a country. It is beyond me how those that voted for him did not realize that they were putting a novice in office. If you set up things to fail, you have no business complaining about it.

Plus, he came into a situation that was way, way over his head. The economy was in trouble, Bush and Congress went the wrong way, and he just put his foot on the gas pedal with the debt. The sad thing is, there was a template to follow which worked in the past.

After the disastrous Carter Presidency, Reagan was able to guide the country to prosperity. Obama did the exact opposite. He had the solution sitting right in front of him and couldn't see it. That is what a novice does.
I agree in the sense that he was not ready for the position. He would have done better to do some more time in Congress and learn.
 
The other side of the coin is true also. Actually the idea of the ACA can be traced back to JFK, private insurance vs. government run for medicare.

Good morning, Pero. :2wave:

Why is it that the Dems have such an interest in healthcare insurance? Hillary tried, and withdrew due the backlash that followed from her own party; JFK thought about it; and with Obama it took bribes and threats and secret meetings behind closed doors to get it passed - with not one Republican vote! Is it that control of one-sixth of our economy is too enticing not to make the attempt?
 
I live in Wisconsin, so I couldn't vote.
 
Health insurance mandate - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

An individual mandate to purchase healthcare was initially proposed by the politically conservative Heritage Foundation in 1989 as an alternative to single-payer health care. From its inception, the idea of an individual mandate was championed by Republican politicians as a free-market approach to health-care reform.[13][14] The individual mandate was felt to resonate with conservative principles of individual responsibility, and conservative groups recognized that the healthcare market was unique. Stuart Butler, an early supporter of the individual mandate at the Heritage Foundation, wrote:

If a young man wrecks his Porsche and has not had the foresight to obtain insurance, we may commiserate, but society feels no obligation to repair his car. But health care is different. If a man is struck down by a heart attack in the street, Americans will care for him whether or not he has insurance.[13]

In 1993, President Bill Clinton proposed a health-care reform bill which included a mandate for employers to provide health insurance to all employees through a regulated marketplace of health maintenance organizations. However, the Clinton plan failed amid concerns that it was overly complex or unrealistic, and in the face of an unprecedented barrage of negative advertising funded by politically conservative groups and the health-insurance industry.[15] At the time, Republican Senators proposed a bill that would have required individuals, and not employers, to buy insurance, as an alternative to Clinton's plan.[13]

An individual health-insurance mandate was initially enacted on a state level in Massachusetts. In 2006, Republican Mitt Romney, then governor of Massachusetts, signed an individual mandate into law with strong bipartisan support. In 2007, a Senate bill featuring a federal mandate, authored by Bob Bennett (R-UT) and Ron Wyden (D-OR), attracted substantial bipartisan support.[14][16]
 
Back
Top Bottom