• 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!

Do you think Obama is living up to his promises?

Do you think Obama is living up to his promises?

  • Yes, I think he is doing exactly what he said he would when he got into office.

    Votes: 8 24.2%

  • Sort of. I think it may take him longer to do some things than I previously thought.

    Votes: 12 36.4%

  • No, he hasn't done anything useful in office and I don't think he ever will.

    Votes: 12 36.4%

  • Who's Obama?

    Votes: 1 3.0%
  • Total voters
    33
DGomez

DGomez

Active member
Joined
Nov 11, 2008
Messages
380
Reaction score
58
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
Let's face it: no president ever fulfills all of their campaign promises. However, I would venture to argue that Obama dished out more promises than average.

IMHO, he hasn't done much thus far. The only thing he has really done is put a cap on salaries in the White House. I find it amusing that the cap was higher than what anyone was actually making in the White House. But I digress.

So what do you say? For those who like him: is he living up to your expectations? For those who don't: are your worst fears being realized?
 
Last edited:
Ahmed Shaheen said:
But I think as long as he tries to, I will assume that yes he is doing what he said ..
Click to expand...

Well he hasn't really tried to do anything except pass FOCA. Normally I wouldn't care. That's a fairly average start for a president. However, he basically sold himself by listing off all the stuff he would do in the first 100 days of presidency.
 
DGomez said:
Well he hasn't really tried to do anything except pass FOCA. Normally I wouldn't care. That's a fairly average start for a president. However, he basically sold himself by listing off all the stuff he would do in the first 100 days of presidency.
Click to expand...

what's the problem if he is doing his best ?
that must make you Permissive about the period he said that he'll attempt to do that stuff.
 
Last edited:
DGomez said:
So what do you say? For those who like him: is he living up to your expectations? For those who don't: are your worst fears being realized?
Click to expand...

too soon to tell. all I know for sure is that he gives me high blood pressure.
 
It's been what - a couple of weeks.

He hasn't even had time to clean the drool stains off the desk in the oval office from his predecessor yet.
 
Thus far I'm leaning towards no, but it is early. However some things, early or not, are clear.

No lobbyists in his white house. This is a promise that was broke. There's really no two ways around it, you can't say "give it more time" because time isn't going to suddenly erase it. He said no lobbyists in his white house, he made it a campaign issue, he then put lobbyists in his white house.

A change from politics as usual. We have new "ethics" reform in lobbyists in the executive that he talked about that, in typical Bush fashion, was filled with loopholes specifically to allow him to put in the people he still wanted to get in; and even then had to break those rules or bend them for some of them. That's politics as usual. Using fear to force through gigantic legislation because if we don't pass it NOW catastrophe will occur; that's politics as usual. Not condemning things when your party then comes out and completely ignores a prior agreement of 48 hours before the final vote and instead rushes it forward. That's politics as usual.

Now, in a general thing, there's still time to see. In some ways he has kept his promise...he's gotten health care into the stimulus, some of his tax cuts seems to be included, etc.

So in my mind, he's living up to some, failing on others, but still needs more time to get an over all view of it.
 
None of the answers are correct for me. I think that Obama over-promised, and some promises will go unfulfilled entirely. Some things are things a President doesn't have complete power over.

However, I don't think that there are an inordinate number of unfulfilled promises with him. And, most of the promises that have not yet been fulfilled I haven't expected that they would be, yet, anyway. So, it's not taking 'longer than I expected'.
 
I don't expect Obama to fulfill many of his promises. That whole bi-partisanship thing went down the toilet fast when it came to brass tacks.

He never had a platform to run on except "change". I don't think anyone who voted for him challenged that issue and quite frankly, GW screwed things up so badly that they would have voted anyone in on the democratic ticket. And of all the potential candidates (especially Hillary who could have done some serious damage with her socialist ideology), Obama's probably the safest since he's really not going to do anything hopefully.

I just hope he doesn't tax and spend us into oblivion.
 
I think Obama greatly underestimated the economic crisis as well as a lot of other things. I think it's going to take a lot longer than he initially realized. Time will certainly tell how good of a President he will end up being. He's been in office an incredibly short time, so I think it's premature of either side of the political spectrum to judge him favorably or unfavorably. He is being seriously tested quite early in his Presidency with this Stimulus Bill and it is certainly dividing people. Some are optimistic and others think it is doomed for failure. We will simply have to wait and see.
 
dclxvinoise said:
He is being seriously tested quite early in his Presidency with this Stimulus Bill and it is certainly dividing people. Some are optimistic and others think it is doomed for failure. We will simply have to wait and see.
Click to expand...


I do wonder how that Stimulus Bill will turn out. As it is right now, I will receive $400 next year during tax season. Wow. Now I can go buy that new driver I've had my eye on for so long and drag the economy out of the dumps.
 
No.


He lied his way into the white house and this will be a repeat of the jimmy carter years.


pucker up.
 
Reverend_Hellh0und said:
No.


He lied his way into the white house and this will be a repeat of the jimmy carter years.


pucker up.
Click to expand...


Ouch.

I'm not a huge fan, but I don't entirely blame him for everything. I do believe he is more of political shell than anything else. My guess is that he has very little say in what he does.
 
DGomez said:
Let's face it: no president ever fulfills all of their campaign promises. However, I would venture to argue that Obama dished out more promises than average.

IMHO, he hasn't done much thus far. The only thing he has really done is put a cap on salaries in the White House. I find it amusing that the cap was higher than what anyone was actually making in the White House. But I digress.

So what do you say? For those who like him: is he living up to your expectations? For those who don't: are your worst fears being realized?
Click to expand...

campaign and real politics is two entirely different things. He even changed campaign promises from the beginning of the campaign to the end of it. He was not the same man that was elected as in the beginning of his campaign.

He is however delivering some good things in some bad times.
 
Reverend_Hellh0und said:
No.


He lied his way into the white house and this will be a repeat of the jimmy carter years.


pucker up.
Click to expand...

You know, this attitude is starting to piss me off. I mean, this is the kind of remark you would hear from someone in North Korea, or maybe Iran. He just throws it out there that "he lied his way into the white house" with absolutely no justification, and completely ignoring the major, serious lies from the Bush administration that these same people pooh-pooed only a few weeks ago. Lies like "we started the war on faulty intelligence", and "the US does not torture". It just amazes me that you can defend things like that, yet claim that this president, in office 3 weeks, and who has accomplished an incredible amount in that short time, is a failure and "lied his way into office".

I, for one, will insist you put some proof behind these outrageous and un-American statements, and not just stand behind the first amendment. Yes, you are an American and free to say what you want, but you are beginning to sound more like AlQaeda.

There is nothing constructive about trying to tear down the government just because your side lost. Besides, your side didn't just lose, it totally ****ed up this country, its economy, its foreign relations, and its military. You started your eight year attempt at governance with a 2 trillion dollar surplus, and left it in tatters, in a recession that actually may be a depression. And yet you refuse even to let the other side clean up your mess. Incredible.
 
Zyphlin said:
Thus far I'm leaning towards no, but it is early. However some things, early or not, are clear.

No lobbyists in his white house. This is a promise that was broke. There's really no two ways around it, you can't say "give it more time" because time isn't going to suddenly erase it. He said no lobbyists in his white house, he made it a campaign issue, he then put lobbyists in his white house.

A change from politics as usual. We have new "ethics" reform in lobbyists in the executive that he talked about that, in typical Bush fashion, was filled with loopholes specifically to allow him to put in the people he still wanted to get in; and even then had to break those rules or bend them for some of them. That's politics as usual. Using fear to force through gigantic legislation because if we don't pass it NOW catastrophe will occur; that's politics as usual. Not condemning things when your party then comes out and completely ignores a prior agreement of 48 hours before the final vote and instead rushes it forward. That's politics as usual.

Now, in a general thing, there's still time to see. In some ways he has kept his promise...he's gotten health care into the stimulus, some of his tax cuts seems to be included, etc.

So in my mind, he's living up to some, failing on others, but still needs more time to get an over all view of it.
Click to expand...

I completely agree.

I have been disappointed on some of his actions (appointees, loopholes in EOs) but policy wise (healthcare, tax cuts, etc.) he seems to be moving forward with what he said he would do.
 
WillRockwell said:
He just throws it out there that "he lied his way into the white house" with absolutely no justification, and completely ignoring the major, serious lies from the Bush administration that these same people pooh-pooed only a few weeks ago. Lies like "we started the war on faulty intelligence", and "the US does not torture". It just amazes me that you can defend things like that, yet claim that this president, in office 3 weeks, and who has accomplished an incredible amount in that short time, is a failure and "lied his way into office".
Click to expand...

Keep in mind that Bush received off the charts popularity votes for his actions during the 9/11 crisis. He also got the A-OK from 100% of the Senate to move in on Iraq. The Senate was controlled by the Democrats at that time.

So, please, credit where credit is due.
 
DGomez said:
Keep in mind that Bush received off the charts popularity votes for his actions during the 9/11 crisis. He also got the A-OK from 100% of the Senate to move in on Iraq. The Senate was controlled by the Democrats at that time.

So, please, credit where credit is due.
Click to expand...

You rightly point out that Democrats supported the Bush administration even though the 2000 election was stolen. Yet Republicans reject the Obama administration from the very beginning.
Also, please remember that Democrats did not vote to go to war with Iraq, they voted to give the President all the power he needed to face down Saddam Hussein, assuming he would start with diplomacy.
 
WillRockwell said:
even though the 2000 election was stolen.
Click to expand...

Highly unlikely. History has shown that the American public always reelects the same president during a time of crisis. Better an evil known than unknown.

With a flaky platform presented by the Democrats, Al Gore had no chance.


WillRockwell said:
Also, please remember that Democrats did not vote to go to war with Iraq, they voted to give the President all the power he needed to face down Saddam Hussein, assuming he would start with diplomacy.
Click to expand...

Nice try.

Please read up on your current events/history. Bush was given all the power he needed to eliminate the military threat of Al Qaeda, an extremist terrorist group. These actions inevitably led to Saddam Hussein and dealings with Iraq. But the Senate voted approval knowing full well it would involve an offensive strike; thus, the controversy over the Iraqi war: is it right to invade a country to take care of a group separate of their government?
 
DGomez said:
Highly unlikely. History has shown that the American public always reelects the same president during a time of crisis. Better an evil known than unknown.
Click to expand...
I'm not even sure what this means. You are aware that Bill Clinton was president during the 2000 election?
Nice try.

Please read up on your current events/history. Bush was given all the power he needed to eliminate the military threat of Al Qaeda, an extremist terrorist group. These actions inevitably led to Saddam Hussein and dealings with Iraq. But the Senate voted approval knowing full well it would involve an offensive strike; thus, the controversy over the Iraqi war: is it right to invade a country to take care of a group separate of their government?
Click to expand...

I am quite familiar with the particulars of the Iraq Resolution, perhaps you should familiarize yourself with it. Democrats supported this resolution because it gave the president the authority to use the threat of force. History and common sense indicated that force would never actually be used, which is why the resolution had so much support. Do you really believe Democrats wanted George Bush to start a war?

The resolution "supported" and "encouraged" diplomatic efforts by President George W. Bush to "strictly enforce through the U.N. Security Council all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq" and "obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay, evasion, and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies with all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq."

The resolution authorized President Bush to use the Armed Forces of the United States "as he determines to be necessary and appropriate" in order to "defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding Iraq."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom