• 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!

Do you trust president Obama to do a good job fighting ISIS?

Do you trust president Obama to do a good job fighting ISIS?


  • Total voters
    66
OK fine. So what of my point?

Yeah, you have to stop listening to the pundits. The drone strkies that he's been using all along as well as now, coupled with the air strikes are doing their job. The US (people) don't want to send yet more people over there to be killed. I say just keep hitting those people until the entire ME takes us seriously and does something about it themselves.
 
Yeah, you have to stop listening to the pundits. The drone strkies that he's been using all along as well as now, coupled with the air strikes are doing their job. The US (people) don't want to send yet more people over there to be killed. I say just keep hitting those people until the entire ME takes us seriously and does something about it themselves.

Blowing the windows out of empty buildings is going to make the Islamic extremists / terrorists take the US seriously?

Interesting premise. One, I'm afraid, which doesn't seem to be founded in reality, really.
 
Blowing the windows out of empty buildings is going to make the Islamic extremists / terrorists take the US seriously?

Interesting premise. One, I'm afraid, which doesn't seem to be founded in reality, really.

If intellegence says that a particular building is being used, or that a certain line of cars are carrying ISIS people, and we hit both, where's the problem?

You don't sound very realistic yourself.
 
Bias and truth are two different things. The left looked like it had been punched in the gut with the trayvon martin case, for example.

Are you trying to say that FOX news always tells the truth?
 
Exactly how does that defend your claim that people on the left (people with whom you have a political difference with) are low information voters?

Thank you for the easy question. They voted for Obama. I like easy questions.
 
Thank you for the easy question. They voted for Obama. I like easy questions.

10% of republicans voted for Obama. Anyway, you're pretty simple. I suppose only republicans are high information voters? Quite a partisan you are.
 
10% of republicans voted for Obama. Anyway, you're pretty simple. I suppose only republicans are high information voters? Quite a partisan you are.

You don't think that there are no low info Republicans? I really rest my case now about you low info voters. WOW.
 
You don't think that there are no low info Republicans? I really rest my case now about you low info voters. WOW.

You've never had a case with this. You think that if people disagree with you that they are low information. :doh
 
You've never had a case with this. You think that if people disagree with you that they are low information. :doh

When did I ever say that? Low info voters prove it by themselves. Nice try.
 
When did I ever say that? Low info voters prove it by themselves. Nice try.

You lumped the entire 51% of American voters for Obama into your silly box of low information voters. Lol.
 
Thats right. Especially after the second election. Pssst-take a look at this threads poll results-why do you think they look this way?

It depends on why people voted no. For myself it was more that I don't believe that the Islamic state can be destroyed than it is a criticism of Obama's abilities. Bush couldn't destroy AQ either.
 
For myself it was more that I don't believe that the Islamic state can be destroyed than it is a criticism of Obama's abilities.
It can and will, and judging by recent poll numbers, especially amongst married women, it looks like people want a republican to take care of the real world. Obama can sip lattes and golf.
 
It can and will, and judging by recent poll numbers, especially amongst married women, it looks like people want a republican to take care of the real world. Obama can sip lattes and golf.

That's usually how things trend. Americans were so fed up with Bush and Bush failures (22% approval rating) that it was a rather given that he'd be followed by a democratic president, and so yeah, I have no problem believing it will be thrown back to the GOPers for 4-8 years, and after everybodys pissed at them again, it will be given back to the democrats and this cycle goes on and on with only some deviation. I'm still waiting for Americans to grow some balls and kick both these dinosaurs to the curb.
 
That's usually how things trend. Americans were so fed up with Bush and Bush failures (22% approval rating) that it was a rather given that he'd be followed by a democratic president, and so yeah, I have no problem believing it will be thrown back to the GOPers for 4-8 years, and after everybodys pissed at them again, it will be given back to the democrats and this cycle goes on and on with only some deviation. I'm still waiting for Americans to grow some balls and kick both these dinosaurs to the curb.

The cycle is obvious, but there are many on the left who think the republicans are going away, I dont.
 
Well than you have a responsibility to consider what would replace those parties. It would have to be functional or its a non-starter. And you are going to have to convince a lot of people.

About 40% of Americans are independents! Now they need to stop voting for R's and D's and form an independent party.
 
About 40% of Americans are independents! Now they need to stop voting for R's and D's and form an independent party.

Im an independent, and thats a simplistic assessment. R's and D's wont disappear because of independents and even amongst them, there is a highly diverse set of goals.
 
Im an independent, and thats a simplistic assessment. R's and D's wont disappear because of independents and even amongst them, there is a highly diverse set of goals.

I didn't say it would happen, but I believe that it could, and certainly that it should.
 
You lumped the entire 51% of American voters for Obama into your silly box of low information voters. Lol.

And they proved it by voting for the WORST president of the past 70 years. Once again I rest my case. Even your Obamaphone Lady admitted she was low info about the WORST president of the past 70 years.
 
If intellegence says that a particular building is being used, or that a certain line of cars are carrying ISIS people, and we hit both, where's the problem?

You don't sound very realistic yourself.

Better to hit the buildings when filled with ISIS / ISIL people in this middle of their day? There is no air defense to speak of and we could use the F117s and the F22s and their stealth to avoid any minimal radar that might be there?

Anyway, you missed, or are avoiding, my main point which is that Obama's already restricted his future options, as well as the initiative, by telegraphing what he won't do, and that, to my mind, is a serious mistake.

How is it that you trust Obama to conduct this engagement well when such clear and significant mistakes have been made by him?

I mean what do you expect? Obama places politics and ideology over everything, include integrity, honesty, and principals.
 
Last edited:
And they proved it by voting for the WORST president of the past 70 years. Once again I rest my case. Even your Obamaphone Lady admitted she was low info about the WORST president of the past 70 years.

She isn't mine, A and 2, where's your proof that he's the worst? That's been reserved for both Carter and Bush 2. Other then it being your opinion.
 
Well than you have a responsibility to consider what would replace those parties. It would have to be functional or its a non-starter. And you are going to have to convince a lot of people.

George Washington was right.

Without looking forward to an extremity of this kind (which nevertheless ought not to be entirely out of sight), the common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it the interest and duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it.
It serves always to distract the public councils and enfeeble the public administration. It agitates the community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms, kindles the animosity of one part against another, foments occasionally riot and insurrection. It opens the door to foreign influence and corruption, which finds a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passions. Thus the policy and the will of one country are subjected to the policy and will of another.
Washington argued that political parties needed to be restrained in a free country with a government empowered by the consent of the governed and established through popular elections. He warned of the possibility fearing they could distract the government from its required duty to the people and even lead to the eradication of the freedoms established by the founding.


Read more: George Washington's views on political parties in America | Washington Times Communities
Follow us: @wtcommunities on Twitter
 
Back
Top Bottom