• 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
As to the original question. If you polled economists now as to who was the worst president in history the argument would be Wilson or Harding. In 100 years it will be Bush or Obama.
 
He was articulate and sold the "hope and change" thing really well. We very much wanted that, and since he was also relatively new, we wanted him to not be from the old guard and be a change from the some old crap we've been getting.

Unfortunately, we got the same old crap. I attribute this to two things: 1) he wasn't as dedicated to change as he implied, and 2) the establishment is firmly established and doesn't move easily.

If you look at his history in chicago, it was rather clear he was an establishment type that simply played to his demographics during a campaign. This was even pretty evident in the fact that he did a complete switch once he secured the demo primary from a rather left wing candidate to one that was more focused on the center. Not to mention, the guy running his campaign was a notorious astro-turfer in Chicago.

I think it was mainly the fact that he was a young black man and people visually saw that as a "change" from what they viewed as the old, white establishment. Be it on a conscious or unconscious level
 
Yes and no. He got Obamacare, but not to the extent that he wanted. I agree it will unravel, but it will unravel because it is incomplete. If he had been able to get something closer to what he wanted, it might have had a better chance at succeeding.

what do you think he wanted and how was that different than what he got?
 
If Reagan would have been a black guy, he would have never been president.

it was also a different time and place. it's like saying 20-4 years from now when we finally have a gay president "if obama was gay he would have never won the presidency". yeah, no ****, Sherlock. Social attitudes change over time
 
If you look at his history in chicago, it was rather clear he was an establishment type that simply played to his demographics during a campaign. This was even pretty evident in the fact that he did a complete switch once he secured the demo primary from a rather left wing candidate to one that was more focused on the center. Not to mention, the guy running his campaign was a notorious astro-turfer in Chicago.

I think it was mainly the fact that he was a young black man and people visually saw that as a "change" from what they viewed as the old, white establishment. Be it on a conscious or unconscious level
That's standard operating procedure in both parties for as long as seemingly forever. Play to the extremes in the primaries, move to the center in the general election. "Getting elected 101", if you will. The sad part is... we fall for it.

Generic "we", of course.
 
That's standard operating procedure in both parties for as long as seemingly forever. Play to the extremes in the primaries, move to the center in the general election. "Getting elected 101", if you will. The sad part is... we fall for it.

Generic "we", of course.

I agree it's standard operating procedure. Which is why he wasn't obviously "the change we were looking for". He also had a clear track record of doing this the entire time he was in politics (totally changing his platform to fit popular demographics).
 
If you look at his history in chicago, it was rather clear he was an establishment type that simply played to his demographics during a campaign. This was even pretty evident in the fact that he did a complete switch once he secured the demo primary from a rather left wing candidate to one that was more focused on the center. Not to mention, the guy running his campaign was a notorious astro-turfer in Chicago.

I think it was mainly the fact that he was a young black man and people visually saw that as a "change" from what they viewed as the old, white establishment. Be it on a conscious or unconscious level

Which is absolutely no different than any presidential candidate of my lifetime.
 
Which is absolutely no different than any presidential candidate of my lifetime.

Which is the entire point if you pay attention to the actual context of the discussion, as opposed to indulging in some knee-jerk defense ...

He was articulate and sold the "hope and change" thing really well. ***We very much wanted that, and since he was also relatively new, we wanted him to not be from the old guard and be a change from the some old crap we've been getting.***

Unfortunately, we got the same old crap. I attribute this to two things: 1) he wasn't as dedicated to change as he implied, and 2) the establishment is firmly established and doesn't move easily.

If you look at his history in chicago, it was rather clear he was an establishment type that simply played to his demographics during a campaign. This was even pretty evident in the fact that he did a complete switch once he secured the demo primary from a rather left wing candidate to one that was more focused on the center. Not to mention, the guy running his campaign was a notorious astro-turfer in Chicago.

Can you spell "DERP"?
 
Which is the entire point if you pay attention to the actual context of the discussion, as opposed to indulging in some knee-jerk defense ...

Can you spell "DERP"?

Can you spell "I read a comment and replied to it without reading the rest of the page?" Unclench, skippy.
 
Can you spell "I read a comment and replied to it without reading the rest of the page?" Unclench, skippy.

No **** you didn't pay attention to context. You responded with your usual knee-jerk defense against a "conservative". Which is why you're the liberal version of the various conservative ****heads that populate this site, and who you spend the majority of your day having laughable arguments with.

So I was just letting you know that I wasn't one of them and had no interest in indulging you in such. So we could both spend our time here more productively (at least as we see it)
 
No **** you didn't pay attention to context. You responded with your usual knee-jerk defense against a "conservative". Which is why you're the liberal version of the various conservative ****heads that populate this site, and who you spend the majority of your day having laughable arguments with.

So I was just letting you know that I wasn't one of them and had no interest in indulging you in such. So we could both spend our time here more productively (at least as we see it)

A little too much consternation, IMHO, for a sentence that is verifiably true.

Don't like how I post? Then ignore me. Other than that, save your judgements for someone who cares.
 
I'm sure this will end in a proper and dignified manner.
I voted "that guy on tv" but you can count my vote as no.
Obama is NOTHING MORE than that guy on TV.
 
In Perspective:

During the 3-1/2 years of World War 2 that started with the Japanese bombing of Pearl Harbor in December 1941 and ended with the Surrender of Germany and Japan in 1945, the U.S. Produced 22 aircraft carriers, 8 battleships, 48 cruisers, 349 destroyers, 420 destroyer escorts, 203 submarines, 34 million tons of merchant ships, 100,000 fighter aircraft, 98,000 bombers, 24,000 transport aircraft, 58,000 training aircraft, 93,000 tanks, 257,000 artillery pieces, 105,000 mortars, 3,000,000 machine guns, and 2,500,000 military trucks. We put 16.1 million men in uniform in the various armed services, invaded Africa, invaded Sicily and Italy, won the battle for the Atlantic, planned and executed D-Day, marched across the Pacific and Europe, developed the atomic bomb and ultimately conquered Japan and Germany.

It's worth noting, that during the almost exact amount of time, the Obama administration couldn't build a functioning web site.
 
It seems people are judging him on his merits and finding them wanting. He is simply in well over his head and this has been easily seen. While he was a candidate everyone looked at him and saw what they wanted to see and not the actual candidate. He was the equivalent of Harriet Mirers to the Supreme Court.

Every President is in "way over their head". None knows exactly what they're getting into until they receive that first Presidential Security Briefing and then that's when they go, "Oh, ****!" Not even the late, great Ronald Reagan know what was in store for him once he raised his right hand and affirmed the oath of office despite all the high praise he receives in hindsight. They all come in with their own agenda and assuming everything goes as planned and the planets and stars all perfectly align, they achieve their goals. I don't think anyone can deny that President Obama came into office with the most controversies to deal with, more than any other President-elect in modern history. Not even FDR nor Truman had as much to deal with from Day-1. I'm not giving the man a pass, just stating fact.

So, what are the merits as you and others see them?
 
In Perspective:

During the 3-1/2 years of World War 2 that started with the Japanese bombing of Pearl Harbor in December 1941 and ended with the Surrender of Germany and Japan in 1945, the U.S. Produced 22 aircraft carriers, 8 battleships, 48 cruisers, 349 destroyers, 420 destroyer escorts, 203 submarines, 34 million tons of merchant ships, 100,000 fighter aircraft, 98,000 bombers, 24,000 transport aircraft, 58,000 training aircraft, 93,000 tanks, 257,000 artillery pieces, 105,000 mortars, 3,000,000 machine guns, and 2,500,000 military trucks. We put 16.1 million men in uniform in the various armed services, invaded Africa, invaded Sicily and Italy, won the battle for the Atlantic, planned and executed D-Day, marched across the Pacific and Europe, developed the atomic bomb and ultimately conquered Japan and Germany.

Ah, but in order for FDR accomplish all these things, he had to place many of America's factories under federal control, did what GWB did not do during war time which was raise capital by selling war bonds, and used a massive PR machine to talk up America's achievements in the war effort and ensure that every U.S. citizen never forgot who the enemy was - Japs and Germans. Oh, and let's not forget FDR had the draft to rely on whereas GWB and Pres. Obama have an all volunteer force to contend with fighting our battles abroad. It's not quite the same comparison.

It's worth noting, that during the almost exact amount of time, the Obama administration couldn't build a functioning web site.

And if this is "the merit" yourself and others are judging him on...:doh I agree it wasn't a good roll-out on his signature legislation by any measure, but really? Is this why the man rates so low on your presidential success meter? Please tell me you have something much more significant than the administration and/or access to low-cost health care or the transfer of wealth via same?
 
Every President is in "way over their head". None knows exactly what they're getting into until they receive that first Presidential Security Briefing and then that's when they go, "Oh, ****!" Not even the late, great Ronald Reagan know what was in store for him once he raised his right hand and affirmed the oath of office despite all the high praise he receives in hindsight. They all come in with their own agenda and assuming everything goes as planned and the planets and stars all perfectly align, they achieve their goals. I don't think anyone can deny that President Obama came into office with the most controversies to deal with, more than any other President-elect in modern history. Not even FDR nor Truman had as much to deal with from Day-1. I'm not giving the man a pass, just stating fact.

So, what are the merits as you and others see them?

I agree that the job can hold many surprises and requires much negotiation but that s why we tend to elect former leaders who have a track record with some success attached to it who can deal with these situations. There may have been less qualified Presidents in US history than BHO but none come readily to mind.

Not even FDR or Truman had as much to deal with as Barrack Obama??? That\s doesn't make any sense at all.
 
Last edited:
Ah, but in order for FDR accomplish all these things, he had to place many of America's factories under federal control, did what GWB did not do during war time which was raise capital by selling war bonds, and used a massive PR machine to talk up America's achievements in the war effort and ensure that every U.S. citizen never forgot who the enemy was - Japs and Germans. Oh, and let's not forget FDR had the draft to rely on whereas GWB and Pres. Obama have an all volunteer force to contend with fighting our battles abroad. It's not quite the same comparison.

FDR and Truman, along with the spirit of the American people, got the job done
And if this is "the merit" yourself and others are judging him on...:doh I agree it wasn't a good roll-out on his signature legislation by any measure, but really? Is this why the man rates so low on your presidential success meter? Please tell me you have something much more significant than the administration and/or access to low-cost health care or the transfer of wealth via same?
This Obamacare issue is just one of many but as this tends to be looked at as his single success in the last five years we can also look at it with some perspective. What other successes do you believe Barrack Obama has enjoyed?
 
it was also a different time and place. it's like saying 20-4 years from now when we finally have a gay president "if obama was gay he would have never won the presidency". yeah, no ****, Sherlock. Social attitudes change over time

So getting elected because of your skin color was excusable then, but horrible now? Interesting.

I don't know if Obama was elected because of his skin color or not. However, if he was, then he joins the majority of presidents in that regard.
 
he is so good that he sends me christmas card every year
 
So getting elected because of your skin color was excusable then, but horrible now? Interesting.

lol, wtf are you even talking about?

I don't know if Obama was elected because of his skin color or not. However, if he was, then he joins the majority of presidents in that regard.

No, the idea was that social attitudes against electing a black man changed over time, like they will based on sexuality.
 
I'm sure this will end in a proper and dignified manner.
I only want to ask - was the poll intentionally made to look like a hotdog and two balls?
Yes :::::
No :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::D
Maybe::
 
I only want to ask - was the poll intentionally made to look like a hotdog and two balls?
Yes :::::
No :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::D
Maybe::

You noticed that? Must have an eye for that kinda stuff... all good.
 
Surely you should know. You noticed it... the dick and balls.
WOW you must be dreaming about that stuff, I never thought of that, but you are correct come to think of it.
 
Back
Top Bottom