• 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!

Compromising with Obama: Good or Bad?

Is it good or bad to work with Obama?

  • It's good. Although I don't like him, the country needs solutions.

    Votes: 4 44.4%

  • It's bad. Never give an inch.

    Votes: 5 55.6%
  • Total voters
    9
LowDown said:
Absolutely. The trouble is that the President so far hasn't offered anything close to what one would call a middle ground and has rejected all such proposals from the other side. If it's not 100% his way he's not interested.
Click to expand...

The way he sees it he can do whatever he wants without congress, and considering that he is a complete and utter asshole there wouldn't logically be any reason he would be all that interested in working with anyone.
 
Kal'Stang said:
"Working with" and "compromising" are not the same things.
Click to expand...

Not sure I agree within the context of the American political system. And even if you want to call the different animals both are required.
 
Henrin said:
An amendment really wouldn't work with a government that actively ignores their own laws, so I guess nothing.
Click to expand...

Ok so I will ask my original question.

Given that the president is doing what he ca to implement his agenda, would it be better for congress to work with him to have some control over the end product?
 
tacomancer said:
Ok so I will ask my original question.

Given that the president is doing what he ca to implement his agenda, would it be better for congress to work with him to have some control over the end product?
Click to expand...

Is it better to be responsible for terrible unconstitutional laws or to not be responsible for terrible unconstitutional laws? I pick the later.
 
Amadeus said:
Assuming you dislike Obama and his policies, do you think it's good or bad to work with him so that a middleground solution is reached?
Click to expand...

Once again, my answer isn't included. My answer: Compromise is the way a democratic government works. There is no compromise in dictatorships.

It shouldn't matter that the President is Obama (except I gather you hate him, or otherwise your question would have been "should there be compromise with the President?"). The Congress and the White House must compromise, regardless of who is in the W.H. and who is in Congress. That doesn't mean compromise on everything all the time. But there has to be a meeting of the minds as to the budget and other things necessary for the running of the government. Otherwise, it hurts the country and its citizens. We saw that the shutdown caused by Cruze cost us something like $30 billion. We could've used that money for something else. It hurt the country (us), for no purpose.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
The poll question is too general. There is no middle ground on granting amnesty to 12 million illegal aliens, denying tax exempt status based on political ideology or pretending that increasing student loan subsidies makes college more affordable.
Click to expand...

You do know the only the group that got denied was a Democrat sponsoring one right? Anything political got caught in the crossfire, as it should have.

IMO, the IRS didn't go far enough. The 501(c)(3) section is being abused like crazy to hide donor lists after Citizens' United.
 
i will compromise with the devil if it will help save my mother...so yes i am a demo and i have know problem compromising with the republicans if it will help me or my country...but i see most people on poll hate obama so much they wont compromise if their life depended on it..pure hate.....if obama was a doctor and some of the people needed surgery they would probably say" dont let the n###a touch me i rather die
 
JumpinJack said:
Once again, my answer isn't included. My answer: Compromise is the way a democratic government works. There is no compromise in dictatorships.

It shouldn't matter that the President is Obama (except I gather you hate him, or otherwise your question would have been "should there be compromise with the President?"). The Congress and the White House must compromise, regardless of who is in the W.H. and who is in Congress. That doesn't mean compromise on everything all the time. But there has to be a meeting of the minds as to the budget and other things necessary for the running of the government. Otherwise, it hurts the country and its citizens. We saw that the shutdown caused by Cruze cost us something like $30 billion. We could've used that money for something else. It hurt the country (us), for no purpose.
Click to expand...

i have seen on this post where people say the prez wants everything his way,,,that not true and we know it...now the tea party would like to shut this government down..so they refuse to work or compromise with the president because they are confederates
 
We don't compromise with terrorists. He does, but we sure as hell don't.
 
This entirely depends on the issue at hand. If not obstructing things that have been democratically passed counts as compromise, I support the republican party doing that. If there were some left-wing party in congress that had the opportunity to compromise with Obama, it would depend entirely, but I'm sure they would agree on some issues. The question is somewhat irrelevant, as no such party exists in congress, although i do consider myself opposed to the current administration, although from an entirely different perspective than the Republican Party and right-libertarians.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom