• 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!

What kind of Ex-President with President Obama become?

ObamacareFail said:
How about what was in Obama's head, sport? In the last several weeks leading up to the election, Obama was asked by the press why he was campaigning so hard for Hillary when his name is not on the ballot. He responded that while his name was not on the ballot, his policies were. That's good enough for me. His policies were quite clearly repudiated. Kapish?
Click to expand...

I am not interested in arguing with the voices in your ill-informed head. I asked you to back up your position and you could not do so. The logical conclusion is that don't have a defendable position. Start with the fact that you Hillary won the popular vote by nearly 2%. That would be an affirmation; the opposite of what you suggest.

Again, I suggest you study up and get back to us. Next time kindly provide cross-references.
 
Manc Skipper said:
What do you know of facts? You inhabit a post-fact bubble. The press and media don't feed you raw meat, so you label them "liberal" and go to more dubious sources which do. Putin must love you.
Click to expand...

The fact is, Obama is the worst president in American history. It's a damn shame that the closest we could get to the first black president turned out to be an absolute dud.
 
CanadaJohn said:
I appreciate you don't like to hear it, but if Democrats truly wanted to retain the Obama legacy, such as it is, secure the Supreme Court for decades to come, and continue the Obama agenda, all of which Hillary Clinton campaigned on, why did so many Democrats stay home?

For us on the right, Hillary Clinton was and is despicably nauseating but she was the Democrat's standard bearer and the only one capable of securing the above. Donald Trump was equally disliked from the left and by many on the right, myself included, and yet he was able to secure significant increases in key States, States that won the electoral college count for him.

Maybe, just maybe, you have to accept and realize that Obama was only President because of his personality and race, he was only reelected because of his personality and race, and when his time was up, in an incredibly divided country, those who wanted to repudiate the Obama mediocrity were more motivated than those who wanted to extend it. And it's not just the Presidency - it is also evidenced by the fact the Republicans were able to retain the Senate when virtually everyone in the know claimed the Democrats would win it back.

Republicans, after their loss in the 2012 election, took a hard look at who they were nominating in the Senate races and how they were representing themselves to the public and made changes - those changes led to taking Senate control in 2014 and retaining it in 2016. If Democrats are like you, they will continue to flounder. They need a hard look at who they are and what they represented.
Click to expand...
Just my opinion, but I don't think Obama played much of a role at all, positive or negative, in the campaign. I'm seeing it more of a status quo (Clinton) vs reject the status quo (Trump) decision for most people, with some who either loved or loathed one or the other sprinkled in. Rejection of the status quo is why Trump beat some otherwise legit options in the primary, and why Sanders almost did so.
 
upsideguy said:
I am not interested in arguing with the voices in your ill-informed head. I asked you to back up your position and you could not do so. The logical conclusion is that don't have a defendable position. Start with the fact that you Hillary won the popular vote by nearly 2%. That would be an affirmation; the opposite of what you suggest.

Again, I suggest you study up and get back to us. Next time kindly provide cross-references.
Click to expand...

Sorry, sport. I am not impressed by the ad hominem. I backed up my point very well. I went by the horses own mouth(Obama). He quite vocally in the final days up to the election pointed out that while his name was on the ballot, his policies were. And I do not give a hoot about Hillary's 2% popular vote margin. We elect presidents by way of the electoral college. And her extra two million likely came from liberal havens like California and New York. She lost the election because her so called electoral college firewall was broken when Trump won Wisconsin and the toss up states. Now run along.
 
Last edited:
radcen said:
Just my opinion, but I don't think Obama played much of a role at all, positive or negative, in the campaign. I'm seeing it more of a status quo (Clinton) vs reject the status quo (Trump) decision for most people, with some who either loved or loathed one or the other sprinkled in. Rejection of the status quo is why Trump beat some otherwise legit options in the primary, and why Sanders almost did so.
Click to expand...

Well, clearly, for the argument's purpose, President Obama was the status quo. You can't argue otherwise. Hillary Clinton represented a continuation of the Obama Presidency - she said so herself - and I believe people clearly rejected strongly President Obama's contention that Donald Trump was "unqualified" and "unfit" to be President, this from a man who was widely viewed as being unqualified himself for the office.

So, in effect, you're proving my point and rejecting Upsideguy's. He contends the election was not a repudiation of Obama's Presidency and I contend it was. It's hard to argue that a call for change and a rejection of the status quo isn't a rejection of the 8 years of the Obama Presidency.
 
CanadaJohn said:
Well, clearly, for the argument's purpose, President Obama was the status quo. You can't argue otherwise. Hillary Clinton represented a continuation of the Obama Presidency - she said so herself - and I believe people clearly rejected strongly President Obama's contention that Donald Trump was "unqualified" and "unfit" to be President, this from a man who was widely viewed as being unqualified himself for the office.

So, in effect, you're proving my point and rejecting Upsideguy's. He contends the election was not a repudiation of Obama's Presidency and I contend it was. It's hard to argue that a call for change and a rejection of the status quo isn't a rejection of the 8 years of the Obama Presidency.
Click to expand...
Sounds like we're defining things differently here. Yes, Obama was part of the status quo. There was nothing all that special or unique about what he did. I interpreted the question as if he had done something unique or special that had been rejected. The rejection of the status quo would have been valid if any number of run-of-the-mill politicians had been President, not Obama specifically. They didn't reject him, they rejected a larger force of what he was merely a part.
 
radcen said:
Sounds like we're defining things differently here. Yes, Obama was part of the status quo. There was nothing all that special or unique about what he did. I interpreted the question as if he had done something unique or special that had been rejected. The rejection of the status quo would have been valid if any number of run-of-the-mill politicians had been President, not Obama specifically. They didn't reject him, they rejected a larger force of what he was merely a part.
Click to expand...

That's fair, although I would say that a large part of that rejection of a "larger force" contained the ACA and its current status. Like it or not, the ACA will always be Obamacare, and while many Americans didn't want to reject President Obama, the person, as they proved in 2012 - he is unquestionably likeable - they certainly wanted to reject his agenda, the ACA at the top of the list, and it didn't hurt that Hillary Clinton - unquestionably unlikeable - was defending that agenda.

I think, as fans of politics and campaigns, we like to think of things in bigger pictures with bigger meanings. I think the timing of insurance renewal invoices hitting the doorsteps of Americans leading up to election day may have been one of the biggest factors in energizing the opposition and the fact that many fewer young people made it to the pools was a rejection of the Democrat Party and their treatment of Bernie Sanders. In that way, I'd say it was a rejection election rather than a positive vote for Trump.

But Democrats shouldn't be too worried - the got liberal lite as President anyway.
 
apdst said:
It pisses you off because you know I'm right.
Click to expand...

It doesn't piss me off at all and I'm certain that you don't know what you are talking about.
 
apdst said:
The fact is, Obama is the worst president in American history. It's a damn shame that the closest we could get to the first black president turned out to be an absolute dud.
Click to expand...

This is just more partisan hackery from you. The only people who will believe that Obama is the worst President in history are right wing hacks.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
This is just more partisan hackery from you. The only people who will believe that Obama is the worst President in history are right wing hacks.
Click to expand...

Yeah, you're pissed off. Your girl didn't get it...LMAO! The only people that think Obama was a good president are his worshippers. Castro died; you lost another hero.
 
apdst said:
Yeah, you're pissed off. Your girl didn't get it...LMAO! The only people that think Obama was a good president are his worshippers. Castro died; you lost another hero.
Click to expand...

This is what I always like about you, apdst. When you get confronted with one of the many stupid things you say, instead of actually addressing the stupidity, you lie and make up some sort of deflection that is even more stupid than what you originally said. As I said, the only people who thing that Obama is the worst President in history or right wing hacks who don't know a thing about history. But as to what else you said, let's see... please provide any evidence of me complaining about Hillary not winning the election. Better yet, please provide any evidence of me saying anything positive about Castro. There are only a couple of threads on Castro, so that one should be easy. But we know what you are going to do. What you always do... either lie and make up something else, or cowardly scurry off. At least you're consistent.
 
apdst said:
Shows what you know. I predicted Obama would be a dud and I nailed it.
Click to expand...

Actually, you didn't. The only people who think that Obama was a dud are right wing hacks who don't know what a dud is. That would describe you.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom