• 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!

Is obama unting or dividing America.

Is obama uniting America

  • Obama id dividing America

    Votes: 18 75.0%

  • Obama is uniting America

    Votes: 6 25.0%
  • Total voters
    24
sawyerloggingon said:
Calling half of America the "flat earth society" is not dividing?
Click to expand...

Have you ever been to Florida or the Midwest? Flat as a freaking pancake.

He is not dividing the nation--the nation is already divided. He leads from behind because he is too indecisive and obsessed with not losing that he is unwilling to risk anything. Crap like that sings to the choir. Unless and until he takes Harry and Nancy to the woodshed in a very public way, he is third in line to leadership in his own party, let alone the nation.
 
sawyerloggingon said:
Here is what he said to get elected.

MANCHESTER, N.H., Aug. 14 -- Drawing a sharp contrast with Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, his main rival for the Democratic presidential nomination, Sen. Barack Obama said in an interview that he has the capacity she may lack to unify the country and move it out of what he called "ideological gridlock." "I think it is fair to say that I believe I can bring the country together more effectively than she can," Obama said. "I will add, by the way, that is not entirely a problem of her making. Some of those battles in the '90s that she went through were the result of some pretty unfair attacks on the Clintons. But that history exists, and so, yes, I believe I can bring the country together in a way she cannot do. If I didn't believe that, I wouldn't be running."

Here is what he says now.

"The question is not whether we need to act. The overwhelming judgment of science, of chemistry and physics and millions of measurements, has put all that to rest,” Obama said in a major policy address at Georgetown University. “So the question now is whether we will have the courage to act before it's too late.” He later added, addressing those who deny climate change science: “We don’t have time for a meeting of the flat-earth society.”

So you tell me, uniter or divider.
Click to expand...

Two different subjects. So did he say that he was going to deal with only one issue?
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Are you asserting that the majority of America is their audience?

It is interesting to claim that others are divisive and antagonistic when Obama openly refers to those that dare disagree with him as his "enemies" when he won't even use the term "enemies" in referring to the Taliban.

Obama: I shouldn't have used the word 'enemies'
Click to expand...

Oh no, not at all. Just enough to create strong antipathy with some who could be described as politically active. Just an educated guess but I'd say maybe 1/5 to 1/3 of the country is really into politics, if that. So less than half of 1/5 to 1/3. Its the 1/5 to 1/3 that do all the talking about politics but most just aren't interested and have other things on their minds. Some get interested just around election time; still almost half of all Americans don't even vote. If it were the majority of all Americans, we'd have a different President right now.
 
He is definitely not a uniter but face it...the country is well divided and that happened long before him. Your example about his comment re "flat earth" was not meant to divide, it was meant to pander. He panders VERY well. He is a panderer. When it suits him and he thinks he can score points he will wade in and usually ends up looking like a total retard for doing so. The Beer summit comes to mind as does the "If I had a son he would look like Trayvon Martin" idiocy. He is also not a 'leader'.

But a divider? Nah...thats like people blaming their own stupid decisions on Satan.
 
Peter King said:
Well, there is no option there that I could use. Obama is neither uniting or dividing the USA. Partisan politics is what is dividing the USA, Obama is part of that but not the main factor, Republicans have just as big a role (if not bigger) by their refusal to even think about ending their obstructive partisan war on the American people.
Click to expand...

:yt:clap::respekt:


correct and anybody honest and objective sees this basic common sense principle.

"OBAMA" is doing anything on this GENERAL front.
Hacks, media, hypocrisy, biased rhetoric and hyperbole and extreme partisan nonsense is the problem today and its pathetic how many stupid people fall for it.

THe fact is Obama got elected twice by his ability to unite people, he united more people from both sides than most presidents have but that was for his elections not on the general front.
 
I think that when Obama was elected, one of his major goals was to try to bridge the divide in the country, created in large part by GWB and the wedge issues that the Republicans had used in the last several elections.

I think the reality is that Obama was opposed by the United Party of NO...every step of the way, and so he gave up trying to unite the country and recognized that since it wasn't possible, if he wanted to get ANYTHING done he would have to oppose their efforts.

I don't blame Obama for this....I blame the Party of No. Hopefully the next President, be she Democrat or Republican won't encounter the same level of hostility that Obama has.
 
Smeagol said:
Oh no, not at all. Just enough to create strong antipathy with some who could be described as politically active. Just an educated guess but I'd say maybe 1/5 to 1/3 of the country is really into politics, if that. So less than half of 1/5 to 1/3. Its the 1/5 to 1/3 that do all the talking about politics but most just aren't interested and have other things on their minds. Some get interested just around election time; still almost half of all Americans don't even vote. If it were the majority of all Americans, we'd have a different President right now.
Click to expand...

There will always (hopefully) be strong partisans using the media on both sides of many issues. This thread is addressing whether Obama is trying to unite or divide, not the divisiveness of pundits in the media. My point is that Obama must be realistic in his federal spending expectations and actually make choices indicating that a change in federal spending priorities is desired not simply always calling for more federal spending.

We are in a situation now that requires using over 100% of our federal tax revenue to sustain only the "mandatory" federal spending, thus adding any "discretionary" federal spending (stimulus and such) obviously requires either more taxation or a reduction in other federal spending. Those strongly advocaing Taxed Enough Already are not going to simply shut up and let Obama borrow ever more to appease his supporters and desire for ever more federal spending.
 
ocean515 said:
How so?
Click to expand...

Because you're spouting the same divisive rhetoric verbatim. Using your (am radio's/demagogue's) rationale for what constitutes the irreconcilable differences between left and right, there is no corner that remains where left and right can actually agree on anything. So much so that areas in our country that have no business being "liberal" and "conservative" somehow end up as front lines in the culture war anyway, such the environment, energy development, infrastructure and education. Which of course is exactly the point.

The whole "nanny state" idiocy was perfect. Literally every topic, deservedly or not, fits neatly into it.
 
Last edited:
sawyerloggingon said:
Here is what he said to get elected.

MANCHESTER, N.H., Aug. 14 -- Drawing a sharp contrast with Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, his main rival for the Democratic presidential nomination, Sen. Barack Obama said in an interview that he has the capacity she may lack to unify the country and move it out of what he called "ideological gridlock." "I think it is fair to say that I believe I can bring the country together more effectively than she can," Obama said. "I will add, by the way, that is not entirely a problem of her making. Some of those battles in the '90s that she went through were the result of some pretty unfair attacks on the Clintons. But that history exists, and so, yes, I believe I can bring the country together in a way she cannot do. If I didn't believe that, I wouldn't be running."

Here is what he says now.

"The question is not whether we need to act. The overwhelming judgment of science, of chemistry and physics and millions of measurements, has put all that to rest,” Obama said in a major policy address at Georgetown University. “So the question now is whether we will have the courage to act before it's too late.” He later added, addressing those who deny climate change science: “We don’t have time for a meeting of the flat-earth society.”

So you tell me, uniter or divider.
Click to expand...

Global warming is confirmed by a huge consensus within the scientific community; the only disagreement that still exists is about how grave it is, and what exactly the consequences will be. Global warming denial, which almost exclusively exists in the USA, is on par with HIV denial, 9/11 truthers or denial of evolution -- thanks to an unholy alliance between big business that is afraid to lose $$$ and backwards anti-science people (probably the same who want to force schools to stop teaching evolution) who are afraid the evil government wants to grab their cars and cheap gas (their "way of life").

So I don't think this is a particularly good example. Is it "dividing the people" when you stick to the truth and denounce obvious falsehoods? Especially in a case as obvious as this?

As for other actions and policies by Obama, I'm not sure if he rather divides or unites the people. He at least appeases the warmonger hawks by not closing Gitmo, by expanding drone strikes against terror suspects and more such policies, which fortunately resulted in the death of bin Laden, but unfortunately have many bad side effects, such as making America's claim to fight for freedom and human rights totally absurd in the eyes of the world. On the other side, he only appeased the right to some extent, by changing his health care plan, but only to a certain point.

I may be wrong, but my impression is, on the bottom line, that the conservatives who dominate the House, don't leave him any room to unite the people. They're so extremely polarized and totally unwilling for any compromise, that the only option Obama has left is either doing exactly what the Republicans want, or to try to get his plan through against their opposition. But could Obama still have done more? Not sure.

Clinton certainly was a better uniter, but I guess the Republicans back then were more ready for compromise too.
 
Peter King said:
Well, there is no option there that I could use. Obama is neither uniting or dividing the USA. Partisan politics is what is dividing the USA, Obama is part of that but not the main factor, Republicans have just as big a role (if not bigger) by their refusal to even think about ending their obstructive partisan war on the American people.
Click to expand...

Yes, very eloquently put.
 
German guy said:
Global warming is confirmed by a huge consensus within the scientific community; the only disagreement that still exists is about how grave it is, and what exactly the consequences will be. Global warming denial, which almost exclusively exists in the USA, is on par with HIV denial, 9/11 truthers or denial of evolution -- thanks to an unholy alliance between big business that is afraid to lose $$$ and backwards anti-science people (probably the same who want to force schools to stop teaching evolution) who are afraid the evil government wants to grab their cars and cheap gas (their "way of life").

So I don't think this is a particularly good example. Is it "dividing the people" when you stick to the truth and denounce obvious falsehoods? Especially in a case as obvious as this?

As for other actions and policies by Obama, I'm not sure if he rather divides or unites the people. He at least appeases the warmonger hawks by not closing Gitmo, by expanding drone strikes against terror suspects and more such policies, which fortunately resulted in the death of bin Laden, but unfortunately have many bad side effects, such as making America's claim to fight for freedom and human rights totally absurd in the eyes of the world. On the other side, he only appeased the right to some extent, by changing his health care plan, but only to a certain point.

I may be wrong, but my impression is, on the bottom line, that the conservatives who dominate the House, don't leave him any room to unite the people. They're so extremely polarized and totally unwilling for any compromise, that the only option Obama has left is either doing exactly what the Republicans want, or to try to get his plan through against their opposition. But could Obama still have done more? Not sure.

Clinton certainly was a better uniter, but I guess the Republicans back then were more ready for compromise too.
Click to expand...

When you label nearly half of America as "flat earthers" you are driving wedges.
 
sawyerloggingon said:
When you label nearly half of America as "flat earthers" you are driving wedges.
Click to expand...

When that's simply the truth, it's maybe not "uniting", but I don't think there is anything good or virtuous about appeasing people clinging to obvious falsehoods and conspiracy theories.

Look here:



If the reporting in this satire is what you consider "uniting", I'd rather not see the President "uniting". ;)
 
It was sophistry to suggest one man would "united" America as divided as it is currently, and its hyperbole to act as if one man is responsible for the divide or further divide.

Obama did as all pretty much all politicals do....mislead, promise emptily, exaggerate, and manipulate to further their primary purpose, political capital. If at times that means attempting to "unite" some portion of the population, then so be it. If that means attempting to "divide" some portion of the population, so be it. If that means telling the populatoin that you're something different, something uniquely new, something sizably different when that's utter hogwash, that's cool too.

Obama is no more of a uniter or divider than any other modern politician...he's just a far better POLITICIAN on the public facing side than many of them are.
 
German guy said:
When that's simply the truth, it's maybe not "uniting", but I don't think there is anything good or virtuous about appeasing people clinging to obvious falsehoods and conspiracy theories.

Look here:



If the reporting in this satire is what you consider "uniting", I'd rather not see the President "uniting". ;)
Click to expand...


Regardless of what you or Obama believe to be true, calling half of America a derogatory name is dividing not uniting. There is just no rational way to deny that.
 
disneydude said:
I think that when Obama was elected, one of his major goals was to try to bridge the divide in the country, created in large part by GWB and the wedge issues that the Republicans had used in the last several elections.

I think the reality is that Obama was opposed by the United Party of NO...every step of the way, and so he gave up trying to unite the country and recognized that since it wasn't possible, if he wanted to get ANYTHING done he would have to oppose their efforts.

I don't blame Obama for this....I blame the Party of No. Hopefully the next President, be she Democrat or Republican won't encounter the same level of hostility that Obama has.
Click to expand...
Riiiiight. Because YOU...people like you...YOU arent divisive. Its someone else...someone elses fault.

:lamo
 
Cardinal said:
Tune in to am radio for a half hour, and take in all the demagoguery about liberals being the enemies of America.

That is dividing America.
Click to expand...

Really, are the libs listening too?
 
disneydude said:
I think that when Obama was elected, one of his major goals was to try to bridge the divide in the country, created in large part by GWB and the wedge issues that the Republicans had used in the last several elections.

I think the reality is that Obama was opposed by the United Party of NO...every step of the way, and so he gave up trying to unite the country and recognized that since it wasn't possible, if he wanted to get ANYTHING done he would have to oppose their efforts.

I don't blame Obama for this....I blame the Party of No. Hopefully the next President, be she Democrat or Republican won't encounter the same level of hostility that Obama has.
Click to expand...

The Democratic Party was the Part of Yes during the Bush years. :roll:
 
Zyphlin said:
It was sophistry to suggest one man would "united" America as divided as it is currently, and its hyperbole to act as if one man is responsible for the divide or further divide.

Obama did as all pretty much all politicals do....mislead, promise emptily, exaggerate, and manipulate to further their primary purpose, political capital. If at times that means attempting to "unite" some portion of the population, then so be it. If that means attempting to "divide" some portion of the population, so be it. If that means telling the populatoin that you're something different, something uniquely new, something sizably different when that's utter hogwash, that's cool too.

Obama is no more of a uniter or divider than any other modern politician...he's just a far better POLITICIAN on the public facing side than many of them are.
Click to expand...

Can you give me some examples of other presidents that have labeled half of America with a derogatory term such as "flat earth society"?
 
He is neither. Americans have been dividing before him and given the current climate, will still be divided after him.
 
sawyerloggingon said:
Can you give me some examples of other presidents that have labeled half of America with a derogatory term such as "flat earth society"?
Click to expand...

Said quote requires significant assumptions to suggest he's labeling "half of america" as that...similar type of assumptions people use to suggest that George Bush stated that anyone who disagreed with his stance on the War on Terror was "against [america]". Similarly, suggesting that "half of america's" views on things are "much that isn't so" is hardly a grant instance of united as opposed to insulting either.
 
sawyerloggingon said:
Dividing America into ideological camps by labeling one viewpoint "flat earth society" is the subject.
Click to expand...

If you do not want your beliefs ridiculed, then you should have less ridiculous beliefs. But hey, if the shoe fits...

sawyerloggingon said:
Can you give me some examples of other presidents that have labeled half of America with a derogatory term such as "flat earth society"?
Click to expand...

The first fifteen that labeled a whole bunch "slaves". And then all the ones that labeled women "chattel", and then "unfit to vote", and every one until the 1970s, who labeled them "required by law to submit sexually to their husbands". And then all the presidents between Lincoln and JLB who labeled blacks "separate but equal", and the ones who still label them "lazy welfare abusers". And all the presidents before Obama who labeled gays as "unable to marry" and "abominations".

Criticizing you for your demonstrably false and harmful positions is not derogatory.
 
Last edited:
American said:
The Democratic Party was the Part of Yes during the Bush years. :roll:
Click to expand...

Pretty much....The Democrats are spineless and gave Bush pretty much everything that he wanted. Unlike the party of No.
 
Poll needs "other" option.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom