• 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 "Great" US President? (in your personal opinion)?

Has Obama been a "Great" US President? (in your personal opinion)?


  • Total voters
    80
View attachment 67186056

Oh?

Tell me about my racist masters.

They are mostly in the Republican Party, but they include that ghastly Australian **** and other right-wing journalists, obviously. Mostly, though, they are the rich, who just want to see to it that you never stand up for yourselves, just shoot one another, as you know.
 
Great?

Obama hasn't even been a middling president.
 
The first two years of the Obama presidency saw more major legislation passed than any time since the 89th Congress (the Great Society Congress). So if getting significant policy changes passed is your benchmark--and indeed the Great Society is your example--the list of presidents who stand toe-to-toe with LBJ on productivity and major legislation is fairly small. But Obama is on it.

So again, you failed to identify a single piece of significant legislation that Obama championed and got both sides of Congress to follow him on. If you want to champion Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid as great leaders of their respective houses of Congress, I might buy in, but they had such overwhelming majorities in both houses it wasn't hard to get things done. And as your article points out, the legislation passed was so unpopular with the public at large that the Democrats were routed handily in almost unprecedented manner in the first election voters had a chance to punish them in. Not exactly what anyone would call great.
 
Last edited:
So again, you failed to identify a single piece of significant legislation that Obama championed and got both sides of Congress to follow him on. If you want to champion Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid as great leaders of their respective houses of Congress, I might buy in, but they had such overwhelming majorities in both houses it wasn't hard to get things done. And as your article points out, the legislation passed was so unpopular with the public at large that the Democrats were routed handily in almost unprecedented manner in the first election voters had a chance to punish them in. Not exactly what anyone would call great.

If having major Congressional majorities to help your agenda get through and subsequently suffering major electoral losses are disqualifying, again I don't understand the LBJ love.

For historical comparison, LBJ needed a 295-Dem House/68-Dem Senate in the 89th to get the Great Society through (JFK failed to get Medicare passed with a 264-Dem House/65-Dem Senate in the 87th Congress--his response was to ask the public to give him even larger majorities in the following midterm). Obama was working with 253/60 majorities.

And despite having one of the most productive and significant sessions in history, the Democrats immediately lost 47 seats in the House after passing the Great Society agenda. And of course they lost the White House in the next presidential election--something Obama notably didn't.

Your criteria don't seem to be very consistently applied.
 
They are mostly in the Republican Party, but they include that ghastly Australian **** and other right-wing journalists, obviously. Mostly, though, they are the rich, who just want to see to it that you never stand up for yourselves, just shoot one another, as you know.

You have it bass ackwards, mate.

The Dems have been playing Blacks like a fiddle for more than 50 years. And look at the results we have seen from decades of Democratic governance in the Big Cities of America.

You have been swallowing the wrong flavor of Kool Aide.

Show me what makes you believe as you do.
 
If having major Congressional majorities to help your agenda get through and subsequently suffering major electoral losses are disqualifying, again I don't understand the LBJ love.

For historical comparison, LBJ needed a 295-Dem House/68-Dem Senate in the 89th to get the Great Society through (JFK failed to get Medicare passed with a 264-Dem House/65-Dem Senate in the 87th Congress--his response was to ask the public to give him even larger majorities in the following midterm). Obama was working with 253/60 majorities.

And despite having one of the most productive and significant sessions in history, the Democrats immediately lost 47 seats in the House after passing the Great Society agenda. And of course they lost the White House in the next presidential election--something Obama notably didn't.

Your criteria don't seem to be very consistently applied.

Great Society was brilliantly designed to give the poor, and especially Blacks just enough to make us beholden and just enough to make us continue wanting the entitlements but the Democrats have gotten the MUCH BETTER end of the deal.

They have OWNED US since the 1960's. And we now come to think of Democrats as having a guaranteed base of Black Voter Support.

And they ain't no ways tired of shaking the tree and getting us to come a runnin.

And you want to see how brainwashed and Pavlovian dog loyal and blind we are to the scam created by LBJ? Take the time and listen to what Mitt Romney actually told the NAACP in 2012 when he asked for the Black vote.



We'd have been a damn sight better off if he'd had been elected than we are with Obama, any fool can see that, if you just hear what he had to say.

EDIT: I swear that I get the same TYPE of emotional sensation listening to this speech as I get when I looked at JFK's speeches in 1963 before that fatal day in Dallas.

In both cases I wonder just how much better America would have been had they survived their respective fateful November days.
 
Last edited:
How does one go about rightfully criticizing a Black President when deserved without incurring the knee-jerk response of racism from you?

Realistically I would hold words you say with contempt based, well based on this:
http://www.debatepolitics.com/conspiracy-theories/227052-once-again-obamas-muslim-faith.html

There is plenty of legitimate criticism to be given such as his partisanship(which can't be mentioned without noting republicans partisanship), lack of negotiation skills, and overall being a kind of weak handed president, though not a bad, terrible, awful president as some would say.
 
Realistically I would hold words you say with contempt based, well based on this:
http://www.debatepolitics.com/conspiracy-theories/227052-once-again-obamas-muslim-faith.html

There is plenty of legitimate criticism to be given such as his partisanship(which can't be mentioned without noting republicans partisanship), lack of negotiation skills, and overall being a kind of weak handed president, though not a bad, terrible, awful president as some would say.

The greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing the World he didn't exist.

And like that, *poof* he'll be gone.

Having pulled off the greatest deception the world has ever seen and NEVER seen.
 
The greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing the World he didn't exist.

And like that, *poof* he'll be gone.

Having pulled off the greatest deception the world has ever seen and NEVER seen.

You are reinforcing my previous point. This theory belongs in the conspiracy section, and I assume it was moved there. How can you add to the discussion, when you believe something that is to its core, untrue.
 
You are reinforcing my previous point. This theory belongs in the conspiracy section, and I assume it was moved there. How can you add to the discussion, when you believe something that is to its core, untrue.

In a jury room we'd have a hung jury.

I am not convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that he hasn't perpetrated a fraud on all of America.

And if you saw and read all that I have, I'd like to believe you would vote as I would.

But as it stands I believe your certainty is more based on faith than proof.

Your threshold is lower than mine.

Maybe you are a superficial type of person. Light and breezy. Sparkling wit. Take things and people at face value. Very emotional. Committed to causes you don't feel the need to fully investigate beyond the superficial.

I'm just postulating.

That might not be at all accurate.

But it would be representative of millions of people who simply saw he was a good looking, smooth talking, articulate Black man who the leaders of their party and the Liberal media endorsed.

And that was enough.

Except, it wasn't.

And we have ALL paid for that type of breezy-ness and the errors in judgement we made in 2008 and 2012.

Serious questions about him remain and he ain't talkin. Doesn't have to.

And yet the mysteries remain.

And the surest proof of that will be if you ask me, "what mysteries?"

Because that will mean you haven't done your due diligence.

And that is why I have doubts and you don't.
 
You have it bass ackwards, mate.

The Dems have been playing Blacks like a fiddle for more than 50 years. And look at the results we have seen from decades of Democratic governance in the Big Cities of America.

You have been swallowing the wrong flavor of Kool Aide.

Show me what makes you believe as you do.

As you know, when the Republicans were losing, they went desperately for the Southern racist vote when Johnson lost it. I read American posts, kid, and the right are solid KKK, with some hopelessly inadequate efforts to hide their hoods and torches
 
He has been the WORST president ever, worse than Woodrow Wilson, worse than FDR, worse than LBJ, worse than Richard Nixon, worse than Jimmy Carter. He is the most divisive president ever. He is the world's worst liar. Obamacare does almost NOTHING that it promised. His negotiations with Russia, Iran and Cuba are disasters. He is an anti-semitic bigot. He has offended every leader of our ally countries from Netanyahu to Merkel to Brown. He has cow-towed to our enemies. He has refused to try to get along with Congress (Republicans can come along but they have to sit at the back of the bus). He won't even work with his OWN party when they disagree with him.
 
I give him a "D" below average just above failing.

To heck with that! He gets a full blown F! He bumped Jimmy Carter up the list! Look at the mess we're in. I mean really, he said he was gonna fundamentally change this country and he meant it. I'm not talking about legalizing same sex marriage, that's actually one thing that has gone right. Still all these racial riots and whatnot going on all the time are ridiculous. Once in a while you hear a story about a good police officer who actually knows what protect and serve mean. However all we seem to hear is the bad stuff that happens. We lost our AAA credit rating thanks to Obama.

Michelle has stuck her nose in kids eating habits, forcing schools to feed kids this crap that they aren't eating because it looks and tastes awful. Now yesterday's event at the White House for the kids to show off healthy tasty recipes was one thing she did right. The kids seemed to be enjoying themselves, same when she got a bunch of them on the White House lawn to see if they could break the world record for jumping jacks, then joined them in the fun. If she had stuck to doing things like that, encouraging healthy eating but making it yummy and tasty for the kids, and encouraging kids to exercise by doing fun things like trying to break a world record or just activity that they enjoy, she might not get so much flack. Of course it doesn't help matters that she goes somewhere and stuffs a double cheeseburger in her mouth while telling kids not to eat that kind of thing. Junk food is OK in moderation.

Anyway Barack really does not seem to know what he's doing, and he won't listen to advisors either. Not to mention he has been pretty much influenced by communists, and we are slowly but surely heading towards what the Soviet Union was. The latest crap over the Confederate flags has only proven that. It is eerily reminiscent of the days of Stalin.
 
He has been the WORST president ever, worse than Woodrow Wilson, worse than FDR, worse than LBJ, worse than Richard Nixon, worse than Jimmy Carter. He is the most divisive president ever. He is the world's worst liar. Obamacare does almost NOTHING that it promised. His negotiations with Russia, Iran and Cuba are disasters. He is an anti-semitic bigot. He has offended every leader of our ally countries from Netanyahu to Merkel to Brown. He has cow-towed to our enemies. He has refused to try to get along with Congress (Republicans can come along but they have to sit at the back of the bus). He won't even work with his OWN party when they disagree with him.

FDR must have been doing something right. He got elected 4 times after all. LBJ was a real dunce I admit. His "Great Society" idea caused more problems than it ever solved. I really don't think reestablishing relations with Cuba was entirely a bad thing.
 
What the heck do tomatoes have to do with anything?

Historically, rotten tomatoes were thrown at performers to get them off the stage. GWB invaded a nation that wasn't involved in 911, in response to 911, costing thousands of American soldiers' lives -- and hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians -- put the multi-trillion dollar bill on the national credit card, and basically destabilized the entire Middle East (empowering Iran, creating ISIS, etc.). So you placing GWB above Obama and Carter is deserving of a proverbial tomato or two.
 
Historically, rotten tomatoes were thrown at performers to get them off the stage. GWB invaded a nation that wasn't involved in 911, in response to 911, costing thousands of American soldiers' lives -- and hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians -- put the multi-trillion dollar bill on the national credit card, and basically destabilized the entire Middle East (empowering Iran, creating ISIS, etc.). So you placing GWB above Obama and Carter is deserving of a proverbial tomato or two.

So the man wasn't perfect, hence the C+/B- rating. He went into Iraq with the intelligence he had at the time, which may not have been in hindsight, accurate, but it was what he had at the time.

After 9/11 I think most people were ready to blow the entire region off the face of the earth. Reminds me of President Bartlet in the 2nd episode of The West Wing when he found out an American plane had been shot down by the Syrians and said that he was "gonna blow them off the face of the Earth with the fury of God's own thunder." Anyway TV lines aside, I think that's what people wanted us to do after 9/11, so we went into Iraq, even though they had nothing to do with the whole thing because intelligence told us that Saddam still had WMD's. I think he hid them somewhere in the desert and never told, because Lord knows we never found them. We knew bin laden was out there somewhere, and got him. By then he was just a figurehead in al queada anyway. Like I said it obviously was a mistake, but everyone thought the intelligence reports were good at the time.
 
So the man wasn't perfect, hence the C+/B- rating.

Name one thing Obama or Carter did that was as bad as a multi-trillion dollar war that cost thousands of American lives and destabilized a large chunk of the planet.

He went into Iraq with the intelligence he had at the time, which may not have been in hindsight, accurate, but it was what he had at the time.

Cheney and Rumsfeld launched an intelligence operation that was designed to give credibility to faulty intelligence, as long as it was linked to Iraq.

After 9/11 I think most people were ready to blow the entire region off the face of the earth.

A good leader actually leads people in a positive direction, they don't misdirect the anger of people to support an unprovoked war.

I think he hid them somewhere in the desert and never told, because Lord knows we never found them.

He never had them.

We knew bin laden was out there somewhere, and got him.

Bush didn't get Bin Laden. He actually said that he didn't care about Bin Laden.
 
Name one thing Obama or Carter did that was as bad as a multi-trillion dollar war that cost thousands of American lives and destabilized a large chunk of the planet.
Cheney and Rumsfeld launched an intelligence operation that was designed to give credibility to faulty intelligence, as long as it was linked to Iraq.
A good leader actually leads people in a positive direction, they don't misdirect the anger of people to support an unprovoked war.
He never had them.
Bush didn't get Bin Laden. He actually said that he didn't care about Bin Laden.

How about let's focus on Obama's spending us into near collapse? He's already spent more than all other Presidents combined! Also by bailing out of Iraq he pretty much let ISIS take over. They were lying in wait for a chance to pounce. I guess you forgot 9/11 when we were ready to blow the entire region off the face of the earth. WOW and you wonder why things are worse now? Saddam had WMD's somewhere. He likely hid them in Syria or someplace that can do a lot of damage to the rest of world if they are ever uncovered. Also Bush may not have been the one to get bin laden, but at least to Obama's credit he was smart enough to stick with GWB's plan. Also I guess you forgot the "Dead or Alive" posters GWB had made up? If he said he didn't care about bin laden anymore, it could easily have been a ruse to throw the terrorists off guard to make them think we gave up the hunt when in reality....................................
 
How about let's focus on Obama's spending us into near collapse? He's already spent more than all other Presidents combined! Also by bailing out of Iraq he pretty much let ISIS take over. They were lying in wait for a chance to pounce. I guess you forgot 9/11 when we were ready to blow the entire region off the face of the earth. WOW and you wonder why things are worse now? Saddam had WMD's somewhere. He likely hid them in Syria or someplace that can do a lot of damage to the rest of world if they are ever uncovered. Also Bush may not have been the one to get bin laden, but at least to Obama's credit he was smart enough to stick with GWB's plan. Also I guess you forgot the "Dead or Alive" posters GWB had made up? If he said he didn't care about bin laden anymore, it could easily have been a ruse to throw the terrorists off guard to make them think we gave up the hunt when in reality....................................

I'd have to de-evolve myself to respond to this nonsense.
 
Back
Top Bottom