• 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
(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.

1. Seriously? I think Bush accomplished going to war with Iraq and Afghanistan with bipartisan cooperation, among other smaller things. That's QUITE an accomplishment, wouldn't you say? HOW on earth did he manage that?

Wrong, wrong, WRONG!!! The President works for US! Not the other way around. If I have questions of MY president, I expect him to show ME some respect. He is the elected official who works for me, not the other way around bud. :roll:

2. The correct decision is to NEVER negotiate with terrorists and put a PRICE on the head of Americans, soldiers or civilians. We go in, and we TAKE them back.

3. And AGAIN, other presidents have managed to come to compromise and do things with bipartisan cooperation.

Of course we have problems with lobbyists, this is not breaking news!!

So, all of this to argue that Obama IS a good president? What exactly IS your point anyway?
 
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.

Good points.
 
The economy is exponentially better than it was in his first few months, which he really can't be blamed for.

However he can be blamed for how long it has taken to recover and for how many people are still out of work(Many more then the present unemployment figures show).
 
However he can be blamed for how long it has taken to recover and for how many people are still out of work(Many more then the present unemployment figures show).

Yes, those poor people, apparently they don't count.
 
Sure, but the question is about Obama. ;) I never claimed he was different from any other president, just that he was a disappointment because he promised that he would be different.

Yes...it was Obama who campaign on the concept that "We are not red states or blue states....We are the united states". Personally I never believed that he meant it. However the message took with many independants and the youth vote. He has lost bot of those groups since.
 
Yes...it was Obama who campaign on the concept that "We are not red states or blue states....We are the united states". Personally I never believed that he meant it. However the message took with many independants and the youth vote. He has lost bot of those groups since.

Yes, this was all part of his "hope and change" bullcrap. :roll: Who would think he would be one of the MOST divisive presidents in recent history?
 
I'm quite familiar with the healthcare plan as it has already been in place here in Massachusetts since 2006, IIRC?

Something like that. It's actually an old conservative idea. I can understand conservative opposition to it, but 100% conservative opposition to because Obama runs with it? That's suspicious.
 
You're incorrect in your premise that every president has to deal with the same level of opposition that Obama does.

View attachment 67167740

Progressives seem to have very selective memories. Obama has actually not faced as much opposition as President Bush did. The left wing opposition and attacks against Bush were relentless. Obama on the other hand is partially shielded by the fact that he is the first African American president. Many are afraid of being thought of as racist if they oppose or criticize him.
 
Something like that. It's actually an old conservative idea. I can understand conservative opposition to it, but 100% conservative opposition to because Obama runs with it? That's suspicious.

you seem to ignore the difference between the several states and the tenth amendment vs the limited powers of the federal government

that's a huge difference
 
The Obama administration has, thus far, been known chiefly for inconsistency in policy, lackluster and inefficient performance of same, dubious decisions seemingly made on a whim, and a general narcissism and self-interest that will not be viewed kindly by history.


In short, not so good. The administration has NOT been quite as much of a disaster as I originally feared it would be... primarily because it has been so ineffective at doing much of anything at all.

This is what happens when the voters elect a president with no executive experience whatsoever.
 
1. Seriously? I think Bush accomplished going to war with Iraq and Afghanistan with bipartisan cooperation, among other smaller things. That's QUITE an accomplishment, wouldn't you say? HOW on earth did he manage that?

Wrong, wrong, WRONG!!! The President works for US! Not the other way around. If I have questions of MY president, I expect him to show ME some respect. He is the elected official who works for me, not the other way around bud. :roll:

2. The correct decision is to NEVER negotiate with terrorists and put a PRICE on the head of Americans, soldiers or civilians. We go in, and we TAKE them back.

3. And AGAIN, other presidents have managed to come to compromise and do things with bipartisan cooperation.

Of course we have problems with lobbyists, this is not breaking news!!

So, all of this to argue that Obama IS a good president? What exactly IS your point anyway?

1. Why don't you investigate the causes for yourself? There are four primary reasons. The first was is that Bush convinced the American public that war was a good idea because Iraq sponsored terrorism against the United States and possessed weapons of mass destruction (neither true). He was willing to stake his Administration's reputation and legitimacy as a leader on it.

The second is that Democrats have less compulsion than Republicans to disagree with their opposition; they're a centrist party with a small liberal and conservative wings, tethered together by a slim majority of moderates who would freely vote for a Republican if they had to. 'Disagreeing' with Republicans or asserting themselves against Republican presidents 100% of the time isn't usually in their advantage because even their core voters aren't against Republicans 100%; just 60-70% of the time.

The third was that corporate America was intrigued by the possibilities of the war; a democratic Iraq could be a lucrative source of trade and capital investment, compared to an autocratic Iraq whose markets were closed due to sanctions. Corporate America enjoys representation in both parties.

The fourth is that the military and military industrial complex were intrigued by the possibilities of the war; an Iraq powered by democracy and Western modernization could be employed as a cats paw against Iran and help America influence the political future of the region.

By the way these last two reasons had some merit; however, Corporate America is out of control and frequently imposes on the safety and generosity of the broader American public. Policies that make them more powerful should be eyed very critically by the average American on the street. The last was even more promising, but the war was mismanaged; its goals may have even been unobtainable from the beginning.

As for the other point, I'm not wrong: a leader humbling himself before the people is an interesting exercise that all of them should be subjected to just for the sake of experiencing what it is like to be humble and small, but on the whole leaders that defer to those beneath them can't command the respect they need to lead; making a leader debase themselves or challenging and embarrassing them publicly undermines the entire point of having one at all. Like having a CEO around so you can blame him for when things aren't going well, and for no other reason than that.

2. You can't go in because (1) you don't know where they are (2) they can (and will) execute their hostages. Even if you know (1), the complexities of (2) might put the strike team in an area so dangerous they are at risk from assault at all sides, killing every single one of them and the hostage. The Taliban knows this, so they can afford to drive a hard bargain; terrorists usually know how to get the reactions they want (for example, Osama bin Laden wanted to draw the American military into the Middle East to inflame the region with anti-Americanism and compel Muslims to rise up in arms against Western-backed governments; Bush gave them exactly what they wanted). If Obama had allowed the soldier to die, then the Taliban could have used that to their advantage as well; it proves that America can't or wont do what is necessary to protect their own, a powerful message of propaganda that would have rattled Afghanistan's conviction that America can be a good ally.

At the end of the day, you can't refuse to negotiate with people who have the power to cause you harm *unless* you have an unqualified power to stop them. Despite its enormity and strength, the ability of the United States to fight back against terrorism is not unqualified.

3. Because of the political situation. For example, Abraham Lincoln was able to get the Democrats in the North to cooperate with him because the branch of the party that opposed him most fiercely had been incorporated into the Confederate States of America; an entire wing of Congress that had opposed Republican policies for decades disappeared overnight, leaving their chairs empty and leaving a power vacuum giving Lincoln more strength to control Congress than he would have otherwise enjoyed. Lincoln's presidency if the South hadn't seceded from the Union would strongly resemble Obama's, because every southern representative would have undermined him in every way they could until the situation changed and Republican presidents became less dangerous to their future; once they danger decreased, they could cooperate again.

Political situations differ from the time period; at times, it is useful and fully consistent with Republican goals to cooperate with Democrats. Until their party can safely be in a position to win the presidency again, however, it is highly in their interest to undermine the plans of any Democratic president that gets in their line of sight. Every time period has its own unique political situations, its particular set of the "realities of power."
 
Something like that. It's actually an old conservative idea. I can understand conservative opposition to it, but 100% conservative opposition to because Obama runs with it? That's suspicious.

What's suspicious is how the government wants to force healthcare down our throats. IT should be a choice. OR, insurance companies should have to reimburse us for SOME of our unspent monies that we paid into it. Good LORD! Obama is an insurance companies BEST friend.
 
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.

Unfortunately a president does have influence over gas prices. For instance, Obama holding up the Keystone Pipeline.
 

that has no relevance to what I said. 5 of the US justices did not see the commerce clause as allowing this ACA. clearly a state had the power to implement such a health care law. That is what the founders intended because if a state does something that is stupid, it will ultimately pay the price as people exit the state. Four of 9 justices believe the ACA was unconstitutional and Roberts' attempts to be clever still damned it on a CC foundation.
 
What's suspicious is how the government wants to force healthcare down our throats. IT should be a choice. OR, insurance companies should have to reimburse us for SOME of our unspent monies that we paid into it. Good LORD! Obama is an insurance companies BEST friend.

People want it to be a choice, except when they get injured and are caught without insurance. Then everyone else picks up the tab. The nearest Libertarian hospital is a long, long ways away.
 
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.

You have it completely backwards. It was the democrats who made it clear to republicans that their ideas were not needed. Any republican idea in Obama's first two years for instance was immediately shot down with a veto threat or Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi refusing to even bring it up for a vote. The modern democrat party's concept of compromise or bipartisanship is: "Don't give an inch....and wait for the republicans to give in and come around completely to our point of view.....then call them obstructionists if they don't."
 
People want it to be a choice, except when they get injured and are caught without insurance. Then everyone else picks up the tab. The nearest Libertarian hospital is a long, long ways away.

everyone wanna go to heaven
nobody wanna die!

those of us forced to pay for the irresponsible choices of others generally oppose Obama care
 
People want it to be a choice, except when they get injured and are caught without insurance. Then everyone else picks up the tab. The nearest Libertarian hospital is a long, long ways away.

That explains the PPACA "hardship" exemptions. ;)
 
1. Why don't you investigate the causes for yourself? There are four primary reasons. The first was is that Bush convinced the American public that war was a good idea because Iraq sponsored terrorism against the United States and possessed weapons of mass destruction (neither true). He was willing to stake his Administration's reputation and legitimacy as a leader on it.

There has been evidence that the weapons were moved to Syria (otherwise, tell us WHERE did Syria get their stockpiles?), and/OR the weapons were destroyed when we made our ANNOUNCEMENT that we were going to invade Iraq. This isn't too difficult to believe either.

The second is that Democrats have less compulsion than Republicans to disagree with their opposition; they're a centrist party with a small liberal and conservative wings, tethered together by a slim majority of moderates who would freely vote for a Republican if they had to. 'Disagreeing' with Republicans or asserting themselves against Republican presidents 100% of the time isn't usually in their advantage because even their core voters aren't against Republicans 100%; just 60-70% of the time.

A "centrist" party? I could not disagree more. It is a party FULL of unrealistic ideologues. I find it strange you make these claims when it sure didn't seem to stop them from pushing their ideologies through with little or no bipartisan support.

The third was that corporate America was intrigued by the possibilities of the war; a democratic Iraq could be a lucrative source of trade and capital investment, compared to an autocratic Iraq whose markets were closed due to sanctions. Corporate America enjoys representation in both parties.

This is not a bad thing IMO. These countries NEED to brought out of the middle ages and into the modern world. They are a scourge on society in general.

The fourth is that the military and military industrial complex were intrigued by the possibilities of the war; an Iraq powered by democracy and Western modernization could be employed as a cats paw against Iran and help America influence the political future of the region.

Another wonderful goal IMO. I don't know how realistic it is though.


By the way these last two reasons had some merit; however, Corporate America is out of control and frequently imposes on the safety and generosity of the broader American public. Policies that make them more powerful should be eyed very critically by the average American on the street. The last was even more promising, but the war was mismanaged; its goals may have even been unobtainable from the beginning.

I can agree with this much. We don't fight wars to win anymore. We fight wars from a politically correct perspective. You just cannot win that way, especially when your opponents will fight no holds barred.

As for the other point, I'm not wrong: a leader humbling himself before the people is an interesting exercise that all of them should be subjected to just for the sake of experiencing what it is like to be humble and small, but on the whole leaders that defer to those beneath them can't command the respect they need to lead; making a leader debase themselves or challenging and embarrassing them publicly undermines the entire point of having one at all. Like having a CEO around so you can blame him for when things aren't going well, and for no other reason than that.

I disagree immensely. He shows his strength to those who threaten our safety and security, NOT to those he is obliged to, and he IS obliged to us citizens. We want action and we want explanations. We are sick and tired of how things have been going, and we want change!

2. You can't go in because (1) you don't know where they are (2) they can (and will) execute their hostages. Even if you know (1), the complexities of (2) might put the strike team in an area so dangerous they are at risk from assault at all sides, killing every single one of them and the hostage. The Taliban knows this, so they can afford to drive a hard bargain; terrorists usually know how to get the reactions they want (for example, Osama bin Laden wanted to draw the American military into the Middle East to inflame the region with anti-Americanism and compel Muslims to rise up in arms against Western-backed governments; Bush gave them exactly what they wanted). If Obama had allowed the soldier to die, then the Taliban could have used that to their advantage as well; it proves that America can't or wont do what is necessary to protect their own, a powerful message of propaganda that would have rattled Afghanistan's conviction that America can be a good ally.

We could use a good old-fashioned thing called "intelligence." However, we SUCK at that now. We have completely LOST OUR EDGE as being a powerful country because of a portion of our population who are complete wimps and do not realize that it IS a dog-eat-dog world out there. If you are weak, people WILL take advantage of you. Yes they will.

At the end of the day, you can't refuse to negotiate with people who have the power to cause you harm *unless* you have an unqualified power to stop them. Despite its enormity and strength, the ability of the United States to fight back against terrorism is not unqualified.

We have MUCH power that we are capable of using, we don't do it out of fear of "offending" people. THIS is why we will lose our status in the world and WE will be the weak ones eventually.

3. Because of the political situation. For example, Abraham Lincoln was able to get the Democrats in the North to cooperate with him because the branch of the party that opposed him most fiercely had been incorporated into the Confederate States of America; an entire wing of Congress that had opposed Republican policies for decades disappeared overnight, leaving their chairs empty and leaving a power vacuum giving Lincoln more strength to control Congress than he would have otherwise enjoyed. Lincoln's presidency if the South hadn't seceded from the Union would strongly resemble Obama's, because every southern representative would have undermined him in every way they could until the situation changed and Republican presidents became less dangerous to their future; once they danger decreased, they could cooperate again.

I really don't see what that has to do with our current day political issues. The problem is we have politicians who do NOT care about us or our country. They are BORN politicians I think.

Political situations differ from the time period; at times, it is useful and fully consistent with Republican goals to cooperate with Democrats. Until their party can safely be in a position to win the presidency again, however, it is highly in their interest to undermine the plans of any Democratic president that gets in their line of sight. Every time period has its own unique political situations, its particular set of the "realities of power."

I'm sorry, but if you object to what the President is putting forth, and he is not good at communicating it or selling it, then that is what will happen. In the end, the buck stops with the POTUS. PERIOD.
 
I think that's absolutely true. There's a cottage industry out there that attempts to paint Obama as some wild-eyed leftist, and he's simply not.

Right...

Obama Surrounds Himself with the Most Extreme Appointees in American History

Jones, who joined the administration in March as special adviser for green jobs at the CEQ, had issued two public apologies in recent days, one for signing a petition in 2004 from the group 911Truth.org that questioned whether Bush administration officials "may indeed have deliberately allowed 9/11 to happen, perhaps as a pretext for war" and the other for using a crude term to describe Republicans in a speech he gave before joining the administration.

His one-time involvement with the Bay Area radical group Standing Together to Organize a Revolutionary Movement (STORM), which had Marxist roots, had also become an issue. And on Saturday his advocacy on behalf of death-row inmate Mumia Abu-Jamal, who was convicted of shooting a Philadelphia police officer in 1981, threatened to develop into a fresh point of controversy.

White House Adviser Van Jones Resigns Amid Controversy Over Past Activism | 44 | washingtonpost.com
 
Has Obama been a good president to this point?

I'm not sure this poll reveals anything. You should run an identical poll with identical options with the exception of changes the name to Bush.

I can predict that option 5 would be a big hit in that poll.
 
The traditionalist Americans, who built this country and culture, dislike Obama intensely because of his destruction of the country and the unique American culture in favor of a less productive, 3rd worldlike culture, within which Obama is more familiar and comfortable.

Pretty sure the railroads, justice system and Empire state building were around by the 1970s, bub. So no, "traditionalist Americans" didn't build anything.
 
I'm not sure this poll reveals anything. You should run an identical poll with identical options with the exception of changes the name to Bush.

I can predict that option 5 would be a big hit in that poll.

Utterly ridiculous. Bush is NOT the president and hasn't been for YEARS now. Get over it. The current issues are the responsibility of the current POTUS. Don't try to pawn off HIS responsibilities.
 
Back
Top Bottom