• 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!

Has Obama been a good President?

Has Obama been a good President?


  • Total voters
    75
OK, I'll explain it AGAIN.

"Hope and Change" is a SLOGAN. It looks nice on a t-shirt, or a bumper sticker, or a campaign banner.

"I'll run the most transparent administration in history" or "I'll close Guantanamo Bay" is a campaign PROMISE. Ones he didn't live up to. How is this not clear?

Goodness, all of those things are included in the "hope and change" speeches he made. Like you've been told, words have meaning. He promised to "change" things, did he not?
 
Don't disagree. The lack of cooperation is not entirely his fault as the Reps are largely to blame, but at the same time I'm not so sure he's an easy person to work with, either.

He could also stand to quit whining about it as much as he does. It's not like the GOP is going to change its tactics because Obama publicly complains about it, and it just makes him look like a baby.
 
No, not necessarily. A slogan *can be* innocuous, yes, as "I Like Ike" was. All it was was a way to keep Ike's name relevant, and all it meant was a person indicating their support of the candidate, nothing more. A slogan such as "Hope and Change" has meaning, and is more of a promise. Words have meaning regardless of whether they're in a speech or on a bumper sticker.

By that rationale, if someone didn't like Ike, they could say that Eisenhower violated a campaign promise.

"Hope and Change" is not a campaign promise. Actual campaign promises are promises.
 
Goodness, all of those things are included in the "hope and change" speeches he made. Like you've been told, words have meaning. He promised to "change" things, did he not?

He DID "change" things, did he not? Just maybe not the things each specific voter wanted "changed."

By this absurd rationale, even one broken campaign promise means the overall "Hope and Change" SLOGAN was somehow "broken." I put that in quotes because you can't break a campaign slogan. I seriously cannot understand why you're having so much trouble differentiating between the two. This has nothing to do with being "invested in Obama," as you so absurdly claimed earlier in the thread. This has to do with understanding the fundamental difference between types of political rhetoric.

No, not necessarily. A slogan *can be* innocuous, yes, as "I Like Ike" was. All it was was a way to keep Ike's name relevant, and all it meant was a person indicating their support of the candidate, nothing more. A slogan such as "Hope and Change" has meaning, and is more of a promise. Words have meaning regardless of whether they're in a speech or on a bumper sticker.

Yes, words have meaning. And "slogan" and "promise" do not mean the same thing.
 
Kobie has quite a bit of emotional investment in this president.

Yes, I'm so emotionally invested in him that when 2012 rolled around, I voted third party. Maybe you should pay more attention to what I actually post, rather than what you want to see.
 
It is nice to see the Liberals on here struggling with Obamas broken promise of "Hope and Change".
 
He DID "change" things, did he not? Just maybe not the things each specific voter wanted "changed."

By this absurd rationale, even one broken campaign promise means the overall "Hope and Change" SLOGAN was somehow "broken." I put that in quotes because you can't break a campaign slogan. I seriously cannot understand why you're having so much trouble differentiating between the two. This has nothing to do with being "invested in Obama," as you so absurdly claimed earlier in the thread. This has to do with understanding the fundamental difference between types of political rhetoric.



Yes, words have meaning. And "slogan" and "promise" do not mean the same thing.

Yup, sure, he is an AWESOME president. AWESOME!!! If there is a hall of fame for POTUSes, he needs to be there!!! :lamo
 
Anyways, I'm out of here. Have a good night everyone! :2wave:
 
Yup, sure, he is an AWESOME president. AWESOME!!! If there is a hall of fame for POTUSes, he needs to be there!!! :lamo

Because that's what I obviously said. I see now you're resorting to abject misrepresentation and strawmanning of everything I've posted in this thread. Congratulations; I should have known better.
 
It is nice to see the Liberals on here struggling with Obamas broken promise of "Hope and Change".

It's nice to see another person who doesn't know the difference between a campaign slogan and a campaign promise.
 
Agreed.

For example, the sitting President has pretty much zero influence over gas prices, but they still get the credit if prices go down or the blame if prices go up.

The sitting President has a little more influence over the economy in general, but not near the influence that most people seem to think. It's a minor influence and usually delayed in effect.

Exactly, a president can control the economy like he can the weather. But as you say, presidents get all the glory during good economic times and all the boo's and blame during bad economic times. If a president or government could control the economy, we would never experience a down turn let alone a bad economy. Sometime meddling in the economy, your delayed effect means that it takes longer for us to bottom out and longer for the economy to rise if nothing was done at all. But that is to be debated and economic theories are just that theories.
 
It's nice to see another person who doesn't know the difference between a campaign slogan and a campaign promise.

Like I said, it sure is fun watching Liberals struggling with the broken promise of "Hope and Change". They are still clinging to the LIAR in CHIEFS broken promise.
 
Like I said, it sure is fun watching Liberals struggling with the broken promise of "Hope and Change". They are still clinging to the LIAR in CHIEFS broken promise.

Right on, man.
 
I'll never forget when he said to John McCain, something on the idea of "well, I'm the president, not you." It just struck me as EXTREMELY arrogant, in bad taste for a sitting president, and very juvenile.

To be clear, this was during his first term when there were some televised arguments about health care. The republicans were trying to introduce their plan at the time.

Inexperience maybe? After all his total experience in government was just 2 years as a senator. But he was right, during his first two years in office and when Obamacare was first passed, he and the Democrats didn't need a single Republican vote. That is until Brown took over Kennedy's seat. Perhaps Obama thought the Democrats would always maintain those huge advantages.
 
Inexperience maybe? After all his total experience in government was just 2 years as a senator. But he was right, during his first two years in office and when Obamacare was first passed, he and the Democrats didn't need a single Republican vote. That is until Brown took over Kennedy's seat. Perhaps Obama thought the Democrats would always maintain those huge advantages.

Well, his first two years in federal government, anyway.

And actually, the Dems didn't have enough votes to break cloture until Franken was seated, which took until July 7, 2009.
 
Inexperience maybe? After all his total experience in government was just 2 years as a senator. But he was right, during his first two years in office and when Obamacare was first passed, he and the Democrats didn't need a single Republican vote. That is until Brown took over Kennedy's seat. Perhaps Obama thought the Democrats would always maintain those huge advantages.

It was expected that the democrats would try to push through as much as possible when they had the numbers to do so, but by the time the next election came along all that Obama and the democrats really had to show for it was Obamacare. I doubt politicians that push through unpopular laws when they have huge number advantages really think they won't pay for it in the next election and I don't think Obama was any different. Obama might be an asshole, but he's not stupid.
 
Well, his first two years in federal government, anyway.

And actually, the Dems didn't have enough votes to break cloture until Franken was seated, which took until July 7, 2009.

Yeah, I forgot about Minnesota. But the thing is after 2010 Obama could have pivoted just like Clinton did, but he choose not to. Clinton didn't have a problem working with Gingrich, Hastert and Lott. Mainly I think because he knew he had too. Perhaps Obama never realized he had to work with Republicans after 2010.
 
Well, his first two years in federal government, anyway.

And actually, the Dems didn't have enough votes to break cloture until Franken was seated, which took until July 7, 2009.

Aren't Saturdays suppose to be no clown days on the DP unless the topic is about how politicians are elected to office by voter fraud ?

I like how you got around that by saying "seated" instead of elected.
 
Aren't Saturdays suppose to be no clown days on the DP unless the topic is about how politicians are elected to office by voter fraud ?

I like how you got around that by saying "seated" instead of elected.

Because it's accurate. He was elected in November. He wasn't seated until July.

Oh, I forgot, every time a Democrat wins an election, it's voter fraud.
 
Obama has never had to prove himself until he was elected President. He was nothing more than a community organizer. People fell in love with his speeches. He has proven over and over that NONE of his speeches has any substance at all. Obama is not only a liar but a proven hypocrite over and over again.
 
Don't disagree. The lack of cooperation is not entirely his fault as the Reps are largely to blame, but at the same time I'm not so sure he's an easy person to work with, either.

is not his fault... I think it is because according to progressives they would favor deporting you - regardless if you're legal or not - just to prove a point.

At the simple time its the fact of the democRATS that make business more difficult to do in the US regardless if I'm Italian or not.... Now does that make me conservative? I suppose to most progressives, but what is my true political affiliation - I'd like to believe libertarian.
 
Obama has never had to prove himself until he was elected President. He was nothing more than a community organizer. People fell in love with his speeches. He has proven over and over that NONE of his speeches has any substance at all. Obama is not only a liar but a proven hypocrite over and over again.

You mean Jay Carney and one peep...
 
Back
Top Bottom