• 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 a good president?[W:577]

Is Obama a good president?


  • Total voters
    176
I understand where you are coming from. I think the shut down over defunding the ACA was pretty stupid strategy. Just before the shut down going by RCP the gap was 14-19 points advantage in the opposition to the law. Just after that shutdown that gap closed between 4-10 points. The shut down which was caused trying to defund the ACA actually helped it. Call it the law of unintended consequences.

It has taken a month and a half to get that original gap back. I suppose my strategy would be if things are going your way, don't rock the boat.

Members of the Republican Party that I know are very principled people. They would never allow their Representatives to have the flexibility to strategize. Republicans expect their Representatives to stand up for what is right with a steel fist. If you are right you don't have to be sneaky and wise. Just beat them over the head with it. Yes. It's a terrible strategy. Opponents ignore arrogance but republican voters love it. What can you do if you are a representative in one of these districts full of these principled people?

It's not bad to make $180,000 a year to do nothing even if you do have to be on the losing team. The Republican Party will continue to exist in various pockets of the country but I really don't think they will ever be effective again and I don't think there will ever be a Republican president again. This isn't the politicians fault. There is a very small group of people who control the Republican Party. These are the people who show up as delegates on the odd number years. You know? The boring year when you don't have an election.
 
Members of the Republican Party that I know are very principled people. They would never allow their Representatives to have the flexibility to strategize. Republicans expect their Representatives to stand up for what is right with a steel fist. If you are right you don't have to be sneaky and wise. Just beat them over the head with it. Yes. It's a terrible strategy. Opponents ignore arrogance but republican voters love it. What can you do if you are a representative in one of these districts full of these principled people?

It's not bad to make $180,000 a year to do nothing even if you do have to be on the losing team. The Republican Party will continue to exist in various pockets of the country but I really don't think they will ever be effective again and I don't think there will ever be a Republican president again. This isn't the politicians fault. There is a very small group of people who control the Republican Party. These are the people who show up as delegates on the odd number years. You know? The boring year when you don't have an election.

That makes me wonder have any of the Republicans took a gander at the party affiliation polls? On 1 Nov 2012 30% of the electorate identified themselves with the Republican Party, on 1 Nov of 2013 only 20% did, that is a loss of 1/3 of the people who use to identify with them in one year time period. Of course the Democrats also dropped during that year from 35% to 30% while independents rose from 33% to 47%. That tells me there is a lot of dissatisfaction with both parties, but more so with the Republicans. Now with all the problems over the ACA the Republicans are starting to regain some strength and have the trend among the voters going their way. So do they want to stop this in dead in its tracks?

I will be the first to admit the Democrats when it comes to national elections for the presidency has a huge advantage in the electoral college. Considering the growth of independents about the only candidate that I can see at the moment that may be able to over that huge advantage is Christie. Even so I do not think you are seeing the demise of the Republican Party. I have been around too long and heard too many times the demise of one or the other party.

The Republican Party was suppose to go on the trash heap of history after Goldwater in 1964 and after Watergate in 1974, it didn't. The republicans was suppose to have a lock on the presidency with the solid Republican south and there were a few books written about that during Reagan how the Democrats could never again win a national election. Then came Clinton. Now here we go again. I'll worry about 2014 before I even start to get into and think about 2016. As it stands now the Republicans have a 50-50 chance of regaining the senate, but with 11 months left that could change, or not. Time will tell.
 
The Republican Party was suppose to go on the trash heap of history after Goldwater in 1964 and after Watergate in 1974, it didn't. The republicans was suppose to have a lock on the presidency with the solid Republican south and there were a few books written about that during Reagan how the Democrats could never again win a national election. Then came Clinton. Now here we go again. I'll worry about 2014 before I even start to get into and think about 2016. As it stands now the Republicans have a 50-50 chance of regaining the senate, but with 11 months left that could change, or not. Time will tell.

This is very true, and more recent than that -- it wasn't 10 years ago when Karl Rove was crowing about a "permanent Republican majority."

The Rise of Karl Rove | Vanity Fair
 
This is very true, and more recent than that -- it wasn't 10 years ago when Karl Rove was crowing about a "permanent Republican majority."

The Rise of Karl Rove | Vanity Fair

The closest thing to a permanent majority occurred with the Democrats keeping control of the House from 1955 thru 1994. I never dreamed I would ever see a Republican Majority in the house. I think the politics of today who controls what will be a wild ride. Never before has the party strength of both parties ever been as low as it is. Gallup shows only 50% of the electorate identify with the two parties now while 47% identify themselves as independents. So how independents go so too goes the two parties. During Perot's time 68% of the electorate identified with the two parties and only 32% as independents. That is quite a drop in an 20 year time frame for the two so called major parties.
 
Not a problem my friend. I personally feel free trade has cost this nation a bunch of jobs. But I am not an expert in that field at all. So it is my gut I am relying on. I think it is the WTO that irks me more than NAFTA, I think this country ought to be able to put up tariffs if a country isn't fair to our companies.

Right, that's why i said honest free trade and yes, the WTO is like the UN.
 
Right, that's why i said honest free trade and yes, the WTO is like the UN.

My sentiments exactly. Then it seems like we're the only country that abides by the WTO rulings while other countries simply ignore them. I wonder, is there such a thing as honest free trade?
 
My sentiments exactly. Then it seems like we're the only country that abides by the WTO rulings while other countries simply ignore them. I wonder, is there such a thing as honest free trade?

It's probably like anything else when two or more people are involved in an enterprise of some sort. Each has to be watched constantly in order to prevent one from taking advantage of another. Everybody is always buying or selling something and it always works best when each is satisfied with the deal.

Back to the topic though and Krauthammer, in case you haven't read it, has a great column on the subject. Charles Krauthammer: Woe to U.S. allies - The Washington Post
 
It's funny because there are legitimate criticisms of the president coming from both the left and right, just like with all of them. But nope, someone has to drop their pants, sh-t, and leave without washing their hands.
Well I had to come back to this. The humorless, bloodless crowd you seem to enjoy doesn't meet my standards in every instance, either. You offer foul-mouthed prudery, then perform the same function you accuse others of. Nice. Furthermore, my comments at the beginning of this poll were not intended to derail the thread at all. If you want to see some of that, try looking around a little bit instead of showing your behind. I'm not the least bit interested.
 
It's probably like anything else when two or more people are involved in an enterprise of some sort. Each has to be watched constantly in order to prevent one from taking advantage of another. Everybody is always buying or selling something and it always works best when each is satisfied with the deal.

Back to the topic though and Krauthammer, in case you haven't read it, has a great column on the subject. Charles Krauthammer: Woe to U.S. allies - The Washington Post

Krauthammer is probably right about the Ukraine, but I will wait and see about this deal with Iran. The way I look at it, if we had done nothing and left the sanctions in place as was, Iran was still going to get the bomb no matter what. We shall see.
 
Given where we were when Obama took office and the economic situation he was handed, along with the keys to the booze cabinet, I think he certainly has been a good president. I think he could have done better in some aspects of course, but overall I believe we're better off.

But we'll need to refill the cabinet for the next guy.

Yeah, I wish we could all borrow our budget money with no plan to pay it back
 
Yeah, I wish we could all borrow our budget money with no plan to pay it back

Like we've been not doing for the last 200+ years? Its interesting that in spite of being handed a deficit of over a trillion and a major recession, and still fulfilling his pledge to cut the deficit in half in five years, Obama is seen as the worst ever when it comes to this matter.
 
I don't like Obama's policies, that's for sure, and I don't like what I can see that he's done to harm our nation.

So my inclination is to vote "no" in the poll.

However, I realize how much done out in the open, both nationally and internationally, is for show, for political power-pandering.

And, the stuff I never hear about, like all the national-leader hot-line phone conversations and what local devastations or sudden global nuclear holocausts might have been averted, these things never get out to the public as trusted news via trusted sources.

Thus, all I can say, is that I must admit that I don't have what it takes to be President, and those who do have it, those who would risk so much to run for the office, you've got my salute, just for showing up.
 
No matter. The progress was made under his administration. We constantly knock the guy for everything bad that happens on his watch, so why can't we credit him with something positive that happens on his watch?

I don't like Obama but I believe in being fair. That's not my politics, it's my sense of right and wrong. Getting rid of second class citizenship feels right to me.

President Lincoln was no champion of Negros. He was a man who did the right thing.
I simply believe that this happened while he was in office, not that he made it happen. I think it would have happened despite or because of him. I'm not one to refuse to give him credit for things. I was one of a few to give him credit for his attempt to reach out to Iran. I believe he made that happen. So I'm not denying him credit for the progression of equal rights for gay people simply to be a partisan. I truly believe he did nothing for gays, that's all.
 
He will be remembered for his desire to use drones on American citizens, fire first, ask questions later. His foreign policy starting from 2009 going to foreign countries apologizing for the United States and shafting our few friends in the region in favor of groups our country lists as terrorists. He will be remembered for wanting to attack Syria with missles killing even more people than Assad had accomplished instead of reaching out to all the refugees that had fled to countries like Jordan, Turkey with an all out humanitarian effort extending a helping hand and building relationships with people that could change the thinking of many who have been taught to hate the United States.
There's no way that Obama planned to kill more people than the 50,000+ that have been slaughtered by the Assad regime. The best way to marginalize the terrorists would be to ally with the secularists and moderates on the rebel side, not to throw the baby out with the bathwater.
◾Drone strikes on American Citizens – 5th Amendment Due process Rights negated
If an American defects to an enemy army, it is not a violation of their due process to kill them on the field of battle.
◾Congress did not approve Obama’s war in Libya. Article I, Section 8, First illegal war U.S. has engaged in. Impeachable under Article II, Section 4.
Also false. We've conducted plenty of wars without ever going to Congress.
◾Plans to sign U.N. Firearms treaty – 2nd Amendment.

The treaty has nothing to do with the right to bear arms, and doesn't even affect us domestically. It limits the international gun trade, and is done to prevent the arming of death squads in conflict-ridden countries - a policy that someone who supposedly cares about Fast and Furious would agree with.
 
I simply believe that this happened while he was in office, not that he made it happen. I think it would have happened despite or because of him. I'm not one to refuse to give him credit for things. I was one of a few to give him credit for his attempt to reach out to Iran. I believe he made that happen. So I'm not denying him credit for the progression of equal rights for gay people simply to be a partisan. I truly believe he did nothing for gays, that's all.

Then how about some credit for not interfering or speaking out against it? I've come to be really, really annoyed by Obama so maybe in my desire to be fair and independent, I seek some redemption for him. I voted for him in 2008 with high hopes. While I could not vote for him in 2012, I think he's just not very good at his job, but not the satan incarnate that some accuse him of being.

Let me put it like this. If Bush Jr. had been given a 3rd and 4th term (just for discussion sake), I doubt DADT would have been repealed and that was the trigger for the subsequent change in the atmosphere of letting everyone be equal no matter who they sleep with.

Respect,
S
 
I don't like Obama's policies, that's for sure, and I don't like what I can see that he's done to harm our nation.

So my inclination is to vote "no" in the poll.

However, I realize how much done out in the open, both nationally and internationally, is for show, for political power-pandering.

And, the stuff I never hear about, like all the national-leader hot-line phone conversations and what local devastations or sudden global nuclear holocausts might have been averted, these things never get out to the public as trusted news via trusted sources.

Thus, all I can say, is that I must admit that I don't have what it takes to be President, and those who do have it, those who would risk so much to run for the office, you've got my salute, just for showing up.

Not when their sole motivation is narcissism and vanity.
 
Like we've been not doing for the last 200+ years? Its interesting that in spite of being handed a deficit of over a trillion and a major recession, and still fulfilling his pledge to cut the deficit in half in five years, Obama is seen as the worst ever when it comes to this matter.

the debt increased under him faster than any President in our history, deficits means dick when debt still increases. Disability is the highest in our history along with welfare. We can credit this idiot with the downfall of our country.
 
Then how about some credit for not interfering or speaking out against it? I've come to be really, really annoyed by Obama so maybe in my desire to be fair and independent, I seek some redemption for him. I voted for him in 2008 with high hopes. While I could not vote for him in 2012, I think he's just not very good at his job, but not the satan incarnate that some accuse him of being.

Let me put it like this. If Bush Jr. had been given a 3rd and 4th term (just for discussion sake), I doubt DADT would have been repealed and that was the trigger for the subsequent change in the atmosphere of letting everyone be equal no matter who they sleep with.

Respect,
S
So credit for getting out of the way? Sure, I'll give him that.
 
He's better than Reagan.

Btw, that wasn't a compliment for what it's worth.
 
Back
Top Bottom