• 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 grade would you give Obama?

What grade would you give Obama?

  • A+

    Votes: 1 1.5%

  • A-

    Votes: 1 1.5%

  • B+

    Votes: 2 3.1%

  • B-

    Votes: 4 6.2%

  • C+

    Votes: 16 24.6%

  • C-

    Votes: 7 10.8%

  • D+

    Votes: 10 15.4%

  • D-

    Votes: 6 9.2%

  • F

    Votes: 7 10.8%

  • F-

    Votes: 11 16.9%
  • Total voters
    65
C-. He had the opportunity to make some real progress when he had the supermajority and he blew it.
Click to expand...

soot said:
I gave him a C- too, for much the same reason.
Click to expand...

It is a myth and a falsehood that Obama ever had a Super Majority.
This was a falsehood created by Republican pundits to make it look like it was Obama's fault that nothing was accomplished.

In reality the Dems had what is called a "Simple Majority".
With the current use of the filibuster, a Simple Majority is all but completely worthless.

Supermajority - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

United States Senate elections, 2008 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
NO VOTE
As an individual, I am not qualified - few of us are.
As a self-grade....can be better...
 
TheNextEra said:
Well at least he can say nuclear right.

I give Obama an F.
Click to expand...

I can name all the states and most of the Presidents (but NOT the first 6 or 7).....SO WHAT....that does NOT make me a leader.
IMO, President Obama has done a good job, considering the conditions and circumstances.
 
John Liberty said:
Wow, I'd highly suggest looking at the news. Afghan, Iraq, Syria....He's continued what the Bush family started. He's not aggressive regarding foreign policy, he's wanted for WAR CRIMES.
Click to expand...

ok so Iraq he followed exsisting plans to pull out, Afghan was a war the US was already engaged in but Obama has set a timeline for withdraw, as for Syria what exactly has Obama done in this region that would be considered a war crime?

I would highly suggest you watch some real news...
 
Painter said:
It is a myth and a falsehood that Obama ever had a Super Majority.
This was a falsehood created by Republican pundits to make it look like it was Obama's fault that nothing was accomplished.
Click to expand...

Actually, it's neither a myth nor a falsehood.

President Obama did have a supermajority in the Senate. It was only briefly, and I don't exactly know that I'd call it "functional", but it's a fact that he had one.

And even if he didn't have a supermajority, the Democrats held 58 or 59 seats, functionally (not counting the Franken debacle or Byrd's hospitalization) for two years.

If you're such a poor leader that you can't get anything done in two years despite the fact that your party holds the both House and 59 seats in the Senate then you're a C- president at best.

Thanks for bringing this up and strengthening my case (at least in my own mind). I'm now absolutely convinced that C- is more than fair.
 
soot said:
Actually, it's neither a myth nor a falsehood.

President Obama did have a supermajority in the Senate. It was only briefly, and I don't exactly know that I'd call it "functional", but it's a fact that he had one.

And even if he didn't have a supermajority, the Democrats held 58 or 59 seats, functionally (not counting the Franken debacle or Byrd's hospitalization) for two years.

If you're such a poor leader that you can't get anything done in two years despite the fact that your party holds the both House and 59 seats in the Senate then you're a C- president at best.

Thanks for bringing this up and strengthening my case (at least in my own mind). I'm now absolutely convinced that C- is more than fair.
Click to expand...

No offense, but you just contradicted yourself and beat your own argument.
There are 2 definitions of "Super Majority". One being 60 seats, the other being 66.
The Democrats never held 60 seats. Not even briefly before the death of Kennedy.

Saying that Obama should of been able to get something done with 57-59 seats is being intellectually dishonest, as we both know that there is absolutely no difference between 51 seats and 59 seats where the never ending string of filibusters are concerned.
In today's Senate, there is actually no difference between 59 seats and 41 seats. Neither can get anything past the Republicans. Not even Republican ideas.
However, this is a separate debate.
My concern is the improper use of the term "Super Majority". Obama never had one. There is no gray area there.
 
Last edited:
Painter said:
No offense, but you just contradicted yourself and beat your own argument.
There are 2 definitions of "Super Majority". One being 60 seats, the other being 66.
The Democrats never held 60 seats. Not even briefly before the death of Kennedy.
Click to expand...

Yes, they did.

In January of 2009 the Congressional year began with 56 elected Democrats and 2 Independents caucusing with the Dems.

That equals 58.

In April Arlen Specter switched parties.

That equals 59.

In July Al Franken was finally seated.

That equals 60.

So they had a supermajority there.

In August Kennedy died.

That brought the majority back down to 59.

In September Paul Kirk was seated to fill the Kennedy vacancy.

That brought it back up to 60.

Again, a factual supermajority.

Both Byrd and Kennedy (prior to his death) were in and out of the chamber during much of this nine-month time period but that doesn't change the fact that the Democrats held a supermajority.

In January of 2010 Scott Brown replaced Kirk and brought the Dem. majority back down to 59 where it stayed until June when Byrd died bringing it down to 58 where it stayed until the midterms.

My concern is the improper use of the term "Super Majority". There is no gray area there.
Click to expand...

I agree there's no gray area.

You are very clearly wrong in a very black and white sense.
 
Last edited:
soot said:
Yes, they did.

In January of 2009 the Congressional year began with 56 elected Democrats and 2 Independents caucusing with the Dems.

That equals 58.

In April Arlen Specter switched parties.

That equals 59.

In July Al Franken was finally seated.

That equals 60.

So they had a supermajority there.

In August Kennedy died.

That brought the majority back down to 59.

In September Paul Kirk was seated to fill the Kennedy vacancy.

That brought it back up to 60.

Again, a factual supermajority.

Both Byrd and Kennedy (prior to his death) were in and out of the chamber during much of this nine-month time period but that doesn't change the fact that the Democrats held a supermajority.

In January of 2010 Scott Brown replaced Kirk and brought the Dem. majority back down to 59 where it stayed until June of '10 when Byrd died bringing it down to 58 where it stayed until the midterms.



I agree there's no gray area.

You are very clearly wrong in a very black and white sense.
Click to expand...

There were only four months where the full 60 were available to vote.

Not enough time to carry out an entire Administration's worth of work.
 
marcus903 said:
What grade would you give Obama?

Just curiously asking.
Click to expand...
C-
Don't ask Don't tell repealed.
Got Osama with Bush walked away
Wound down Iraq and Afghan wars
ACA passed but could have been a better bill.
But
Finance Reform is a joke; people that caused the problem are
in the Administration -- Larry Summers, et al.
Too timid when dealing with Congress;
Too many pivots.
 
soot said:
2 Independents caucusing with the Dems.
Click to expand...

According to you, they had it for a couple of weeks at best.
Yeah it is such a shame that Obama did not accomplish glorious things in those 2 weeks. (sarcasm)

Anyhow, your still wrong.
2 Independents are not Democrats. And 1 of those 2 Independents was Leiberman, who despised Obama more than you do.
While Kennedy was alive, Leiberman did a better job at blocking Universal Health Care than the entire Republican Party as a whole.
In fact, Leiberman is the entire reason they bowed out and had to use the Republican model of Romney-Care.

Your wrong technically, as Independents are simply not Democrats.
But your also wrong practically, as Lieberman was never completely on their side and opposed Obama no less than any Republican.
But your also wrong within your own argument, as 2 to 3 weeks of a super majority is also not enough time to achieve anything.
 
Painter said:
According to you, they had it for a couple of weeks at best.
Yeah it is such a shame that Obama did not accomplish glorious things in those 2 weeks. (sarcasm)
Click to expand...

I guess sarcasam is the best way to deal with the Obama administration.

And don't get me wrong, I voted for the guy and had very high "hopes" for him.

But he's proven to be an utter disapointment at every turn.

Your wrong technically, as Independents are simply not Democrats.
Click to expand...

If that's what you want to pretend you go right on ahead and keep pretending.
 
earthworm said:
I can name all the states and most of the Presidents (but NOT the first 6 or 7).....SO WHAT....that does NOT make me a leader.
IMO, President Obama has done a good job, considering the conditions and circumstances.
Click to expand...

I'm not giving Obama an F for his speaches. I'm giving him an F because of his foreign and domestic policies, for Obamacare, and for the bailouts.

You may not agree with me, and that's fine, but I don't judge an entire presidency on Gaffes.
 
Cardinal said:
My own personal grading system

A's - made progress worthy of having your face on currency, such as reforming the economy and educational systems into the envy of the world (e.g.)
B's - fine. Did your job well, made some progress perhaps, but mostly just didn't screw anything up.
C's - squandered opportunities and failed to deliver on expectations
D's - clearly contributed to the decline of the country, such as economically and diplomatically as happened under Bush II.
F - country goes into civil war
Click to expand...

That's a pretty solid grading system.

I would give him a D+. I think he's a horrifically weak and indecisive leader and this hurt us economically and diplomatically.
 
soot said:
I guess sarcasam is the best way to deal with the Obama administration.

And don't get me wrong, I voted for the guy and had very high "hopes" for him.

But he's proven to be an utter disapointment at every turn.

If that's what you want to pretend you go right on ahead and keep pretending.
Click to expand...

Why do you insist that Lieberman was a Democrat?
He campaigned with McCain. In fact McCain was one of his best friends outside of work.
Leiberman was instrumental in stopping Democrats from creating a real health care bill.

An Independent is not a Democrat. But an Independent that stopped the Democrat's highest goal and aspiration for the last 40 years is most certainly NOT.
Additionally, Leiberman was pro Iraq, pro war, pro making Georgia a member of NATO and risking all out war with Russia... the list goes on.
He was no friend to Democrats.

I do agree with you that Obama is a disappointment though. He has no spine and refuses to stand up for himself or stand up to Republicans. If he backs down in the slightest way to the new round of Republican threats to harm the country, I will completely turn on the man.
 
Last edited:
ecofarm said:
I hope you enjoy claiming that Obama has reduced the deficit, because I think that's ****ing hilarious.
Click to expand...
He plainly has. Not much of an argument, despite your top shelf farm analogies.
 
I gave him an F-, however, I will rescind that. If he keeps his promise about pulling us out of Afghanistan next year, if we stay out of Syria, and if he doesn't commit us to any other useless war, I'd give him a D-. That's pretty much the only good thing the dude's done in my book.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom