• 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
reinoe said:
So Republicans are willing to let a perceived criminal go without justice? Even the mark of an impeachment can bring an out of control president to heel. Why are Republicans refusing to even try to do their jobs?
Click to expand...

Impeach him for what? The fact you do not like his policies?
 
ChrisL said:
Impeach him? Not that I consider that a viable option, but even if they decided to go forth with those proceedings, he would be out of office long before any kind of action was taken.
Click to expand...

The Republicans were left looking like fools over their impeachment of Bill Clinton back in 1998 I think. It had all the marks of a partisan witch hunt and that is exactly how it came across to the majority of the American people. Of course the Republicans will say the impeachment was due to the fact he lied under oath. For every other American it occurred because of a BJ in the oval office.

Political differences should not be used for impeachment.
 
Perotista said:
The Republicans were left looking like fools over their impeachment of Bill Clinton back in 1998 I think. It had all the marks of a partisan witch hunt and that is exactly how it came across to the majority of the American people. Of course the Republicans will say the impeachment was due to the fact he lied under oath. For every other American it occurred because of a BJ in the oval office.

Political differences should not be used for impeachment.
Click to expand...

Okay, but what an idiot he was. Lol! To risk destroying your career over THAT? :lamo So just because he was so stupid, he kind of deserves it IMO.
 
annata said:
the lack of legislation is overshadowed by the enormous growth of the regulatory agencies.
I saw Fox Report (the only Fox show I watch), and it said 117 laws passed by Congress, but 3700 new regulations.

People do not understand the "4th branch of gov't". They wield expansive power, and are passing reg, that have the force of law.
Another indicaton of the Unitary POTUS.

^
from your link.
Which is the real story of DC, practiced by both sides.
Click to expand...
Congress got along fine after 911. But then Bush railroaded that bi-partisan bag of goodwill into Iraq and set it afire. In 2003, the GOP took control of congress and the presidency, and then they suddenly began ruling as if they owned the place.

Once Obama won the presidency, the GOP publicly said their goal was to make him fail, be a one-term president. Since then they've bro ahut repealing ACA up for vote 30-plus times.

Sorry. I pin most of this on the band of intolerance called the Righ Wing.
 
calamity said:
Congress got along fine after 911. But then Bush railroaded that bi-partisan bag of goodwill into Iraq and set it afire. Once Obama won the presidency, the GOP publicly said their goal was to make him fail, be a one-term president. Since then they've bro ahut repealing ACA up for vote 30-plus times.

Sorry. I pin most of this on the band of intolerance called the Righ Wing.
Click to expand...

I would definitely agree that the right wing has not contributed anything of value. Both parties suck is the bottom line here.
 
ChrisL said:
Okay, but what an idiot he was. Lol! To risk destroying your career over THAT? :lamo So just because he was so stupid, he kind of deserves it IMO.
Click to expand...

Perhaps, but that process turned the political landscape around for a bit. If anything Clinton came out of the whole thing cleaner and the Republicans with egg on their face. Yes, Billy Boy was real stupid. So the question was is doing something stupid in their personal life an impeachable offense? Most Americans at that time were saying no. Most Americans thought this was something between him and Hillary to work out.

After all, America knew he was a draft dodger, a pot smoker who didn't inhale, a protester in England, they knew about his Jennifer Flower affair or affairs prior to electing him back in 1992. Apparently during this time period, the electorate were not looking for moral type president.
 
Perotista said:
Perhaps, but that process turned the political landscape around for a bit. If anything Clinton came out of the whole thing cleaner and the Republicans with egg on their face. Yes, Billy Boy was real stupid. So the question was is doing something stupid in their personal life an impeachable offense? Most Americans at that time were saying no. Most Americans thought this was something between him and Hillary to work out.

After all, America knew he was a draft dodger, a pot smoker who didn't inhale, a protester in England, they knew about his Jennifer Flower affair or affairs prior to electing him back in 1992. Apparently during this time period, the electorate were not looking for moral type president.
Click to expand...

I agree to a point, but the president is supposed to maintain a certain decorum and dignity, don't you think? I certainly don't approve of any of those other things either, but I didn't vote for him. :mrgreen:
 
ChrisL said:
I agree to a point, but the president is supposed to maintain a certain decorum and dignity, don't you think? I certainly don't approve of any of those other things either, but I didn't vote for him. :mrgreen:
Click to expand...

I didn't either, I voted for Perot twice. Being military I could never understand how a draft dodger could be elected, but he was. JFK had his flings, Marilyn Monroe and others, but JFK knew quality when it came to his flings. Billy Boy and Lewinski, now I don't know. Apparently quantity was more important to Clinton than Quality.

I think Bill was a good president for the times and that most people looked at him as a good president. They weren't really worried about his foibles or extra curricular activities. Bill could get away with a BJ in the white house while probably no other president could have or can. It was like the old saying, "Only Nixon could have gone to China."
 
Perotista said:
I didn't either, I voted for Perot twice. Being military I could never understand how a draft dodger could be elected, but he was. JFK had his flings, Marilyn Monroe and others, but JFK knew quality when it came to his flings. Billy Boy and Lewinski, now I don't know. Apparently quantity was more important to Clinton than Quality.

I think Bill was a good president for the times and that most people looked at him as a good president. They weren't really worried about his foibles or extra curricular activities. Bill could get away with a BJ in the white house while probably no other president could have or can. It was like the old saying, "Only Nixon could have gone to China."
Click to expand...

I was a little young at the time, but I've heard that he did a lot of good things, like lowering the deficit and that we actually had a surplus for a time under his presidency.
 
I really couldn't vote in this poll.

That extra o in "good" keeps throwing me.
 
ChrisL said:
I would definitely agree that the right wing has not contributed anything of value. Both parties suck is the bottom line here.
Click to expand...
I used to hate Democrats and only distrust Republicans; now I hate Republicans and distrust Democrats.

Back in the 70's & 80's, Democrats were disconnected from reality. One look at the housing projects in Chicago or the subway system of NYC laid out the problems with Democratic logic. However, Tricky Dicky clearly demonstrated that the GOP could never be trusted.

Flash forward to today. The GOP way can never lead to a coherent melting pot. Their coalition of the greedy and the anti-sexual freedom bible thumpers would never allow the masses to rise up from poverty and leave those who are different alone. In GOP paradise, atheists, gays, and the average laborer with minimal skills and low intelligence would remain marginalized forever. However, as we see with the Clintons, Pelosi, and Obama, the D's are sneaky and dishonest, often pushing their personal agenda and promoting their own fortunes on the down-low.
 
calamity said:
I used to hate Democrats and only distrust Republicans; now I hate Republicans and distrust Democrats.

Back in the 70's & 80's, Democrats were disconnected from reality. One look at the housing projects in Chicago or the subway system of NYC laid out the problems with Democratic logic. However, Tricky Dicky clearly demonstrated that the GOP could never be trusted.

Flash forward to today. The GOP way can never lead to a coherent melting pot. Their coalition of the greedy and the anti-sexual freedom bible thumpers would never allow the masses to rise up from poverty and leave those who are different alone. In GOP paradise, atheists, gays, and the average laborer with minimal skills and low intelligence would remain marginalized forever. However, as we see with the Clintons, Pelosi, And Obama, the D's are sneaky and dishonest, often pushing their personal agenda and promoting their own fortunes on the down-low.
Click to expand...

I feel that way about both parties. Too many extremists in both.
 
Perotista said:
The Republicans were left looking like fools over their impeachment of Bill Clinton back in 1998 I think. It had all the marks of a partisan witch hunt and that is exactly how it came across to the majority of the American people. Of course the Republicans will say the impeachment was due to the fact he lied under oath. For every other American it occurred because of a BJ in the oval office.

Political differences should not be used for impeachment.
Click to expand...

I was thinking about this, and you must admit, after finding out that Clinton is giving women "the cigar" in the White House, how can he be respected as a world leader after an incident like that? I believe she (Monica) was the target of much vitriol too.
 
TurtleDude said:
uh wrong-what he did in Law school has no relevance to his admission

My college roommate freshman year had perfect board scores. He had the highest GPA in the history of one of the elite prep schools. He won two national mathematics competitions that were open to HS students through PhD students. His application-according to an associate director of admissions I used to play squash with-the strongest of the several thousand Yale Received for the Class of 1981.

he never made it through Freshman year. Boredom and cocaine were too much to overcome. he never ever graduated.

Using your logic, Yale shouldn't have admitted him because he ended up dropping out and never earning a degere-anyplace
Click to expand...

Had Yale had any indication that such would happen, surely he would not have been admitted.

Yes, Yale and all of the Ivy's screen for the upside and downside of students and are quick to dismiss for character flaws and admit for character. The Ivy's have a very complex admissions algorithm. It isn't all about raw scores. You need sufficient raw scores, rather than the best raw scores. They want diversity in the student populace as well as they want to find students that will ultimately "do the school proud".

Yale screwed up on your "buddy" (they don't get them all right); Harvard had a winner with Barack. Then again, one is Harvard and the other is not.
 
Last edited:
calamity said:
Congress got along fine after 911. But then Bush railroaded that bi-partisan bag of goodwill into Iraq and set it afire. In 2003, the GOP took control of congress and the presidency, and then they suddenly began ruling as if they owned the place.

Once Obama won the presidency, the GOP publicly said their goal was to make him fail, be a one-term president. Since then they've bro ahut repealing ACA up for vote 30-plus times.

Sorry. I pin most of this on the band of intolerance called the Righ Wing.
Click to expand...
lol.. what did you expect after a attack on US soil? Of course they 'all got along".

There is a dearth of leadership in the Congress, the Tea party is surely out to blow up any compromise;
but Harry Reid invoking the 'nuclear option', on Obama apppointments,
and (more importantly to fill the DC Court of Appeals), is not going to help mend fences either.

I've seen hyperpartisanship come and go but there was always a few grown-ups in Congress to try to work it thru.

I do agree this batch is a bunch of whiners; what I am wondering if things were reversed, how the Dem's would act?
 
ChrisL said:
I was a little young at the time, but I've heard that he did a lot of good things, like lowering the deficit and that we actually had a surplus for a time under his presidency.
Click to expand...

Bill did a lot of good things, in 2000 his last year in office the debt rose only 17 billion and it was reported that surpluses would rein for the next 15 years. Then came Bush II and the end of any surplus. When Clinton took office the deficit for 1992 was 347 billion and the debt stood at 4.411 trillion. When Clinton left office the deficit for 2000 was 17 billion and the national debt stood at 5.807 trillion. Bill came the first president to come this close to actually having a surplus since Eisenhower who had surplus in two of his eight years.

I didn't particularly care for Clinton when he was in office, but as time goes by he looks better and better and in my lifetime I rank him as my number 3 president right behind IKE and JFK. Perhaps it is absents make the heart founder or it may be we just had two rotten presidents in a row. At least in my opinion. Bill passed Welfare Reform, something that no Republican would have been able to do, but he also got NAFTA and us joining the WTO which I disagreed with. But over all, yeah I would say he was a darn good president.
 
annata said:
lol.. what did you expect after a attack on US soil? Of course they 'all got along".

There is a dearth of leadership in the Congress, the Tea party is surely out to blow up any compromise;
but Harry Reid invoking the 'nuclear option', on Obama apppointments,
and (more importantly to fill the DC Court of Appeals), is not going to help mend fences either.

I've seen hyperpartisanship come and go but there was always a few grown-ups in Congress to try to work it thru.

I do agree this batch is a bunch of whiners; what I am wondering if things were reversed, how the Dem's would act?
Click to expand...
I do not believe that the D's are as ideologically cohesive as the R's. However, if "President Palin" sat in the White House, they'd probably coalesce to oppose such a polarizing figure.

Now, the question to ask is this. Is Obama as polarizing as Palin? I believe that for some, Obama is the worst ever possible president. He is, for them, what Palin would be for me: the epitome of what is wrong with America.

Now, what may be worth exploring is the "why?" of it all.

I dislike Palin, not because she is a woman, but because she is vindictive and vacuous, a rabble rouser who knows how to throw red meat to the racists and bigots. However, when it comes to Obama, I suspect the bulk of his haters simply see a Black Democrat in the WH, and that drives them crazy.
 
ChrisL said:
I feel that way about both parties. Too many extremists in both.
Click to expand...

Well, both parties are developing a strong split. The R split is very public-- a battle between the "old guard" and the Tea Party. THe D split is more quiet, but equally divisive: the Centrists are at odds with the Progressives.

I'd love to see a third, call it the Moderate Party, evolve out of the two lumps of coal we currently have to choose from. But...I'm not holding my breath.
 
calamity said:
I do not believe that the D's are as ideologically cohesive as the R's. However, if "President Palin" sat in the White House, they'd probably coalesce to oppose such a polarizing figure.

Now, the question to ask is this. Is Obama as polarizing as Palin? I believe that for some, Obama is the worst ever possible president. He is, for them, what Palin would be for me: the epitome of what is wrong with America.

Now, what may be worth exploring is the "why?" of it all.

I dislike Palin, not because she is a woman, but because she is vindictive and vacuous, a rabble rouser who knows how to throw red meat to the racists and bigots. However, when it comes to Obama, I suspect the bulk of his haters simply see a Black Democrat in the WH, and that drives them crazy.
Click to expand...

well Obama's "post-partisan POTUS", lasted about as long as "the most transparent adm", etc. and other crapola Obam either deluded himself into thinking,
or just mouthed off about without thinking.

Obama is a shrewd political animal - he knows how to play the political blame game. Is it called for? Some of it yes; some of it is just deflection.

I'm more domestically liberal then not, but I do have a problem with the regulatory agencies essentially creating law.
Oh it's all constitutional -at least for now-
Today, in Arlington v. FCC, the Supreme Court held 6-3 that courts should confer Chevron deference to agency interpretations of ambiguous statutory provisions concerning the scope of agency jurisdiction
Click to expand...
Supreme Court Holds Chevron Deference Applies to Scope of Agency Jurisdiction | The Volokh ConspiracyThe Volokh Conspiracy

The rise of the 4th branch, and it's not a good idea; to just let regualtory agencies (EPA and such) write what is law in practice.
They do not self-limit, they constantly expand ther roles.

Obama would argue this is how to bypass the "obstructionists", and in the short term yhers it is.
Long term it is anti-constitutional,if not wholly un-constitutional.
Obama is the executive, and it's logical for an executive to glom up powers.

I just do not like this rise of executive powers, but hey..Congress is such a mess I suppose things gotta get done.

I do think you vastly overplay the race factor here -i'm sure it exists, but is not the nmajority reason to oppose Obama (IMHO)
 
ChrisL said:
I was thinking about this, and you must admit, after finding out that Clinton is giving women "the cigar" in the White House, how can he be respected as a world leader after an incident like that? I believe she (Monica) was the target of much vitriol too.
Click to expand...

I don't think it hurt him in his standing with other world leaders. A lot of them have or had their mistresses on the side. Regardless, Bill was the leader of the free world and any sex scandal didn't effect that one bit. Humor wise, now a lot of foreign papers had a ball with this thing and I don't blame them. You must remember the Flowers thing broke before his first election, then the Paula Jones thing, followed by Monica, Bill was a playboy no doubt about it. Perhaps one thing that helped him out was up until Reagan and perhaps a little later, that was when JFK's philandering, trysts or what ever was finally made public.

The thing with Bill Clinton during the impeachment process, hearings and final senate vote from December of 1998 through February of 1999 his approval ratings started off at 63% in December and by the end of February his approval ratings rose to 66%. Perhaps those numbers reflect the witch hunt attitude of the public. I don't have the approval ratings of the Republicans in congress, but they really shrunk. In the end it was the republicans who were the villains, not Bill Clinton.
 
annata said:
well Obama's "post-partisan POTUS", lasted about as long as "the most transparent adm", etc. and other crapola Obam either deluded himself into thinking,
or just mouthed off about without thinking.

Obama is a shrewd political animal - he knows how to play the political blame game. Is it called for? Some of it yes; some of it is just deflection.

I'm more domestically liberal then not, but I do have a problem with the regulatory agencies essentially creating law.
Oh it's all constitutional -at least for now-

Supreme Court Holds Chevron Deference Applies to Scope of Agency Jurisdiction | The Volokh ConspiracyThe Volokh Conspiracy

The rise of the 4th branch, and it's not a good idea; to just let regualtory agencies (EPA and such) write what is law in practice.
They do not self-limit, they constantly expand ther roles.

Obama would argue this is how to bypass the "obstructionists", and in the short term yhers it is.
Long term it is anti-constitutional,if not wholly un-constitutional.
Obama is the executive, and it's logical for an executive to glom up powers.

I just do not like this rise of executive powers, but hey..Congress is such a mess I suppose things gotta get done.

I do think you vastly overplay the race factor here -i'm sure it exists, but is not the nmajority reason to oppose Obama (IMHO)
Click to expand...
A lot of ugly racial stuff came out here in Appalachia and the Southern States during the 2008 campaign. My glasses are tinted such that I see racial division more often than not now as a result of what transpired from March through November of that year. When the Tea Party emerged shortly after the inauguration, it sure looked like it was comprised of mostly bands of angry racists white men to me.

Using the executive branch to ram stuff forward was a Clinton initiative. He was the master of working around Gingrich and company. Obama is not nearly as slick. I suspect it's because he isn't as focused on details and doesn't put in as much time getting it done (maybe he is not as dedicated to the cause) as Bill and Hillary.

.
 
ChrisL said:
I was thinking about this, and you must admit, after finding out that Clinton is giving women "the cigar" in the White House, how can he be respected as a world leader after an incident like that? I believe she (Monica) was the target of much vitriol too.
Click to expand...

THat was a weird time and the incident clearly put a blemish on Clinton's presidency. IMO< it wasn't so much the sex, but the cover-up..and, yes, the painting of Linda Trip and Monica as conniving sniveling attention grabbers was a big part of what proved to us that Clinton was a jerk.
 
calamity said:
A lot of ugly racial stuff came out here in Appalachia and the Southern States during the 2008 campaign. My glasses are tinted such that I see racial division more often than not now as a result of what transpired from March through November of that year. When the Tea Party emerged shortly after the inauguration, it sure looked like it was comprised of mostly bands of angry racists white men to me.

Using the executive branch to ram stuff forward was a Clinton initiative. He was the master of working around Gingrich and company. Obama is not nearly as slick. I suspect it's because he isn't as focused on details and doesn't put in as much time getting it done (maybe he is not as dedicated to the cause) as Bill and Hillary.
Click to expand...
I actually went to a very early tea party rally (before it was co-opted by Freedomworks). It was an originalist crowd.
Why i went, since I am a great believer that the demise of federalism ( to the gobble-de-gook nomenclature of "new federalism)
is a reason the fed'l gov't powers are to the point they are choking off any semblance of co-sovereignity.

For sure, there were those also concerned about the debt. And i'm sure there were a few haters in there too.
I gave up, after the tea party became an wing of Dick Armey's group.

Ther is legimate opposition to Obama, thee are racists, there are partisans. I can't really say the demographic breakdown in %'s
 
Perotista said:
I don't think it hurt him in his standing with other world leaders. A lot of them have or had their mistresses on the side. Regardless, Bill was the leader of the free world and any sex scandal didn't effect that one bit. Humor wise, now a lot of foreign papers had a ball with this thing and I don't blame them. You must remember the Flowers thing broke before his first election, then the Paula Jones thing, followed by Monica, Bill was a playboy no doubt about it. Perhaps one thing that helped him out was up until Reagan and perhaps a little later, that was when JFK's philandering, trysts or what ever was finally made public.

The thing with Bill Clinton during the impeachment process, hearings and final senate vote from December of 1998 through February of 1999 his approval ratings started off at 63% in December and by the end of February his approval ratings rose to 66%. Perhaps those numbers reflect the witch hunt attitude of the public. I don't have the approval ratings of the Republicans in congress, but they really shrunk. In the end it was the republicans who were the villains, not Bill Clinton.
Click to expand...

I can't really say because I'm not familiar enough with his platforms regarding things like 2nd amendment issues, foreign policy, etc. I was just too young to really remember much about his presidency. That was before I was really interested in politics at all.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom