• 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 the most polarisng President in your liftime?

Has Obama created a bigger gap between the right and left.

  • Yes he has.

    Votes: 18 38.3%
  • No it's the same no matter who the president is

    Votes: 29 61.7%

  • Total voters
    47
I was very excited for Gary Johnson's presidential run. I hated neither Romney or Obama. Ok I think I hated Romney but that's because he wasn't even trying to hide the fact that he was a habitual liar but that might have been the frustration that he beat out Gary Johnson for the Republican nod.
Do you feel vindicated know that we know Obama is better at it?
 
Last edited:
This House since Feb. of 2011 is the most polarizing do-nothing House and they brag about it.
This GOP Senate since Feb. of 2011 has set all-time records for filibustering .
 
The OP needed to say, "NO, it's the GOP Congress that has caused a greater split between left and right, especially since Feb. 2011 .
Question is mainly directed to the American posters, Obama brings out some strong emotions from both sides of the US political spectrum. So the question is pretty simple do you think Obama has created a bigger gap between the American left and right or is it still business as usual?
 
It's a worthwhile argument between him and Bush. I think the only reason he's above Bush is because of the unearned Nobel Prize he got while the ballot ink was still wet. That really set the ball rolling in many ways.

Which is one thing that is completely, 100% not his fault.
 
Question is mainly directed to the American posters, Obama brings out some strong emotions from both sides of the US political spectrum.
So the question is pretty simple do you think Obama has created a bigger gap between the American left and right or is it still business as usual?




#1 The poll doesn't have enough choices.

#2 G.W. Bush did a fine job opening up the gap between the left and the right.
 
Immaterial. The fact that he got it still got the conservative machine rolling.

That machine was ready to roll on any slight, real or imagined.
 
#1 The poll doesn't have enough choices.

#2 G.W. Bush did a fine job opening up the gap between the left and the right.

It was a yes or no question, didnt feel the need to give you more choices.
 
It was a yes or no question, didnt feel the need to give you more choices.




Maybe you didn't feel the need, but I did, because I found Bush to be very polarizing.

The gap between the left and the right was already there when Obama moved into the White House, and Bush was the guy who put it there.
 
Last edited:
Maybe you didn't feel the need, but I did, because I found Bush to be very polarizing.

The gap between the left and the right was already there when Obama moved into the White House, and Bush was the guy who put it there.

so your answer would of been no then....
 
Wrong.

My view is that Bush created the gap and Obama has had to deal with it.

So to the question. "Has Obama created a bigger gap between left and right?" your answer is NO....:lol:
 
So to the question. "Has Obama created a bigger gap between left and right?" your answer is NO....:lol:




Works for me.

Obama has played the hand that he was dealt.
 
Works for me.

Obama has played the hand that he was dealt.

I would agree with that, I also wonder what part the 24 news channels play in all this? In terms of fannign the flames that is.
 
Damm yanks :lol:

To answer the thread topic, I don't believe Obama is as polarizing as some would make him out to be. IMHO, he's just about as a pragmatist as one might get, I believe he uses common sense or logic to figure out political problems, and believe that our congress is largely responsible for the gap or polarization of the political parties of D & R.

We've had other political parties try to get their foot into the door so to speak, Independents, Green, Tea Party, and a couple of others, but none can get a strong foothold in every election. We do have a few Tea Party, and some Independents as congressional members, but they're usually outvoted, the majority usually always rules here in the US.
 
As a centrist, Obama's policies are not the cause of the polarization we see today, it is more the result of many factors in the media and political landscape. To the extent that Obama himself is polarizing it has more to do with his name, race, and views expressed while campaigning for his first term, not his actions or policies as president. Most significant is the growth of influence of the right wing media outlets, Fox news in particular, but various web sites are also significant. It has resulted in a large number of people who not only have their own views, they have their own facts.

Reagan was the most polarizing president since Nixon because he and his cohorts didn't just implement new policies, they attacked a large portion of the country culturally by stepping up censorship of erotica, passing more extreme drug laws, fighting unions, and verbally and politically attacking people who rely on government benefits, liberals, artists, academics, the counter culture etc. Not only that, they disregarded, circumvented and broke the law to implement their policies when Congress and the courts tried to rein him in, esp. with Central America (arms to Iran, secret funding of the Contra's terrorist activities, support of death squads and dictators, cocaine smuggling etc).

Bush II may have been more like Reagan with the culture wars, they were planning to do it (remember the large number of firings of US Attorneys in 2001?), if the post-9/11 events and wars didn't keep his administration so occupied. Those events distracted the public and provided apparent justification for some of their policies, but it took a long time for the mainstream media and public to realize what was happening. Because of fear of post-9/11 accusations of being soft on terrorism, the mainstream media and Democrats in Congress and Senate went along with many of the Bush II administration's policies, so it was difficult for them to criticize them until the negative consequences became too obvious for the public to ignore. The result was that Bush II was very polarizing to well informed urban dwellers (the left), but it wasn't until the end of his administration that the polarization was at a high level with the mainstream.
 
Last edited:
I feel the division was growing unchecked - the few (ultra wealthy) were calling more and more of the shots before President Obama took office. I feel something needed to be done and I respect a President like Mr. Obama who has stood up to the rich and told them they are to pay and contribute their fair share. After all, the billionaires are reaping the benefits of this country and its liberty, yet feel they have little to no responsibility to give back to keep it strong and ALL classes to have their fair share at the American dream. I feel it was this polarizing or, let it continue down the road of the way the rich willed it - that 1% would continue to control and manipulate our lives so that the 99% stayed on the treadmill working our asses off and they could sit on their 3rd or 4th yacht sipping mai thai's with models 5 deep.
 
Back
Top Bottom