PDA

View Full Version : Report Card: Rate Obama's Presidency So Far



Jagger69
2010-01-27, 10:11
President Obama makes his State of the Union address tonight and it has been approximately one year since he has taken office. How would you rate his performance and the performance of his administration thus far?

I voted for Obama and, personally, I am disappointed in the results at this point. The economy has not improved to any significant degree from what I can tell. In fact, it has probably worsened over this past year (although hopefully we have hit bottom). The deficit is out of control like never before. He has not been able to push forward his health-care agenda in a successful fashion. The war in Afghanistan has been escalated (yeah yeah, I know, that's what he indicated he would do if necessary. I just don't think it was necessary), We're still deeply committed in Iraq with no end in sight and White House security measures have been lenient so say the least. On the positive side, he has greatly improved relations with many of the nations who were alienated by the renegade style of the Bush administration so I am pleased by that. Otherwise, his tenure thus far has been less than expected.

By the same token, he has been battled at every turn by the opposition party and many of his campaign promises have not been able to come to fruition due strictly to the obstructionist policy of the republicans in Congress. There has been no spirit of "reaching across the aisle" that is so often talked about and seemingly never happens. In short, it's the same old partisan gridlock do-nothing government we have come to loathe and expect from this wonderful two-party system we have.

I still have hope for the next 3 years since my own personal stake and the future of my kids and grandkids depend upon it. However, I am not at all optimistic that a significant number of the incredibly humongous problems that confront us will be resolved anytime soon, if ever.

I predict that the fickled, flaky and frustrated swing voters of America, like a jilted teenage girlfriend, will swing back the other way in the mid-term elections and sweep a shitload of republicans back into office just as a way of rejecting what the democratic administration has failed to accomplish thus far. And we all know what a great job the republicans did the last time they had the ball in their hands, right? :rolleyes:

Grade Obama's peformance and post any comments you might have on same. As for me, I'm giving him a "C-" only because of all the roadblocks and landmines that have been placed in his way. Otherwise, I'd probably give him a "D". Not at all what I had hoped for nor expected. I sincerely hope for better things over the next three years or we may be mired in trouble so deep we will never find a way out.

The two-party system needs to go! We need alternatives, not the same old shit! As Einstein said, "Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results".

I guess America is insane then. :(:mad::(

Jack Davenport
2010-01-27, 10:22
This should be an interesting thread. I have a few opinions to voice but will do it later in the day when I have a little more time.

Mrs Jolly
2010-01-27, 10:24
If you are just doing the grade on the poll then fair enough but if you are seeking to make comments will those on the right of the aisle coordinate their answers. As I am to understand the message from that quarter President Obama has accomplished nothing and sent the nation hurtling toward socialist oblivion at the same time.

Can we be clear on which of these is the true picture.

For me he is a C+. (The + is for trying the healthcare thing. It was never going to be easy.) Which is OK given that he walked into a difficult set of circumstances. At no point in the last year have I thought that any of the candidates he faced in the primaries or the election proper would have bested him.

biomech
2010-01-27, 10:25
The scary part is this could lead to a Palin presidency.:eek: I think Obama has had a tough road to travel, only because of how bad the previous 8 years had been.
That being said I am disappointed with the healthcare reform, well lack thereof. He has been roadblocked many times by those with their own agendas.
Jagger I agree, the two party system is no longer working.

Jagger69
2010-01-27, 10:35
If you are just doing the grade on the poll then fair enough but if you are seeking to make comments will those on the right of the aisle coordinate their answers. As I am to understand the message from that quarter President Obama has accomplished nothing and sent the nation hurtling toward socialist oblivion at the same time.

Can we be clear on which of these is the true picture.

For me he is a C+. (The + is for trying the healthcare thing. It was never going to be easy.) Which is OK given that he walked into a difficult set of circumstances. At no point in the last year have I thought that any of the candidates he faced in the primaries or the election proper would have bested him.

Point well taken, MJ. Don't just throw out a bunch of expletives without providing lucid and well-thought-out reasons for your feeling and comments. Let's not turn this into a mud-slinging partisan battle please. We've had enough of those here.

BTW, I couldn't list a "+" grade due to the poll being limited to 10 choices. If you want to give a "+" grade, give the letter grade (i.e. "C") and then explain your reasons for feeling that way in your post.

Rey C.
2010-01-27, 10:51
I also voted for him. And to this point, I would also give him a C or C-. While I understand that the "Taliban tactics" of the extreme right might have muddied the waters, I don't believe he should have handed the Stimulus package and the Health Care debate off to Congress (Pelosi). By the time Obama made his own feelings known, the debate had been captured by extremists on the right and the left. So the American people spent the entire summer confused and being told things that weren't even the least bit tied to reality. But the Administration sat back, or did not speak up forcefully enough, so people didn't know what to believe. And while I believe there is going to be changes to health care going forward, whether there are reforms or not, the ONE issue that captivates the attention of the average American right now is the state of the economy (unemployment). If you've lost, or might lose your job, you're thinking more about keeping a roof over your head than whether or not a hospital will sue you when you can't pay your bill if you get sick. We're no closer to having a comprehensive manufacturing policy now than when George "Make it in China" Bush was in office. Some advances have been made on the unfair trade practices that cripple American companies, but not enough to turn the tide, IMO.

My disappointment centers on the perception that I have that Obama has focused on things that should be lower down on the pareto, while not working hard enough on the thing at the top of the pareto (IMO): employment and domestic fiscal policy. The President has little or nothing to do with monetary policy, other than nominating the Fed Chairman. But the overall domestic fiscal policy of this administration doesn't seem to be on point, IMO. On foreign policy, I believe he's done a reasonably good job. In that way, he's more like Bush I... not exactly a ringing endorsement. :1orglaugh

But with all that said, would I take back my vote for Obama? Hell no! By his own admission, John McCain said that he didn't really understand economics - and having Gramm as his main man on econ... I wouldn't trust Phil Gramm's crooked ass any further than I could throw him. And just the thought of Sarah Palin anywhere near the Oval Office would make me "pull the lever" the same way again. I have (or had) a lot of overall respect for McCain. But his past health issues introduced too many risks; the prospect of a President Palin would be like the second coming of Nero, IMO.

Good and timely question, Jagger! :thumbsup:

JacknCoke
2010-01-27, 12:20
The two-party system needs to go! We need alternatives, not the same old shit! As Einstein said, "Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results".

Hit the nail right on the head there!

I don't have much to say really. I did not vote for him I voted for McCain but in all honesty I wish I had not voted at all. This country is in some serious trouble and it's going to take more then spending money to fix it. It's impossible for us to expand when we don't manufacture any more. I don't have any numbers but I can only imagine what % of our major business have moved over seas to save some money and avoid government constraint.

Despite how I feel about Obama I will give him a C to a C-. I too disagree with escalating the war efforts in Afghanistan. If you look at history anyone who has ever fought a "war" there has really yet to succeed. It seems like a lost cause, but he never said he was pulling out of there. I also think that the economy should have shown some sign of at least slowing down the decline. I think the health care plan is going to be a failure without some help from every side possible. I know republicans seem to be trying to defeat the bill, but I believe that some of them may have some good insight on the process and it would not hurt to include them in the negotiations.

But he has at least 3 more years to make some progress. I hope he does some positive things for this country because thats who the majority voted for!

PlasmaTwa2
2010-01-27, 12:46
I gave him a D. We all knew that it was never going to be easy following George Bush and his wonderful 8 year dump on America's international reputation, but Obama for the most part repaired America's reputation on the world stage even before he even became president. However, his domestic policies have been a disaster, and from up here I have slowly watched as the American people have gone from loving him to hating him. I gave him a D because I don't feel he has done anything to deserve a rank above that; so far he has been a very average president.

PamCarmen69
2010-01-27, 13:31
Seems unfair to have a poll with minuses but not pluses :dunno:

ok I see Jagger69 addressed this. Still, could have stuck with straight A B C D E F

Jagger69
2010-01-27, 14:31
Seems unfair to have a poll with minuses but not pluses :dunno:

ok I see Jagger69 addressed this. Still, could have stuck with straight A B C D E F

Yep....could have but didn't so :dunno:

blackbull1970
2010-01-27, 15:31
B

Could be higher if he quits trying this bipartisan shit and just get shit done already.

weinermobile
2010-01-27, 15:32
still hasn't done too much yet, so can't give him good or bad grade. C for me

HeartBroker
2010-01-27, 15:44
"Fence-Sitters"!

lol

jod0565
2010-01-27, 16:42
He's showed the world his peaceful ways, hence his prize, he wants to fine people if they don't get health insurance, he did not close Guantanemo, he wanted to ramrod his health bill with his dem buds, but was halted in Mass. - no "reaching across the aisle" there, his whistling dentures annoy me!

Ha, okay, there.
Thanks.

titsrock
2010-01-27, 16:52
I give him a C because if he listened to the born-again Fiscal experts and let the economy go, we'd have 30% unemployment and breadlines. We'd have to have our own Foreign Relief effort:(

I think if we put 10% nationwide unemployment--we can look at it as 5% for blue collar workers and 5% for white collar workers. The Stimulus seems geared toward blue collar workers, but States seem clueless in how to "spend it" effectively.

TARP was a White Collar bailout, which I believe was needed, HOWEVER, the bailout included no provisions on how to spend the money NOR have we seen the necessary Regulations put back in. It's hard not to blame Obama for the missing regulations, but I find it hard to blame him for Corporate CEOs using TARP to pay bonuses. That wasn't how it was supposed to work! Yes, the fact that it did speaks more to failures of Corporate Capitalism than Government!

I blame Obama completely for going status quo with the Middle East occupations. BRING HOME THE TROOPS NOW!!!:mad: We are wasting our soldiers' lives, time and our money in a giant boondoggle at this point. The wars have been over since 2004. That's the truth.

Obama can still turn it around, but he needs to go in a REAL LIBERAL DIRECTION and not this namby pamby compromise with the GOP shit that he's tried thus far...:hatsoff:

316sherm
2010-01-27, 16:54
C-...he talks a good game, but I am not seeing to much progress

ChefChiTown
2010-01-27, 17:05
Considering the absolute shithole of a mess that he inherited, I'd say that he's done a fairly good job with what he had to work with. He hasn't followed through with all of his promises yet, but he still has 3 years left in office to do so. But, to give him a fair and honest grade for his first year's performance, I would say that he deserves...

B-

JayJohn85
2010-01-27, 17:08
I gave him a B- has he has inherited a shit load of problems. But should read this I know its wikipedia which isnt a great source but its seems mostly correct from what I can remember from history class:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Depression_in_the_United_States

It was Franklin Delano Roosevelt New Deal he was citing in his campaigning wasnt it? Well he has two problems as well as the inherited dung

1. There is no world war
2. Is farming still a primary industry in the US? I doubt it.

titsrock
2010-01-27, 17:18
^
Corporate Farming Congolmerates like Cargill rule the Farming Industry today. There are maybe 15% of Family Farms today compared to the 20s-50s....

Green Technology is the right sector which employs Blue collar AND white collar workers. These jobs can't be offshored/outsourced and the benefits of Green Technology give us a better quality of life, less reliance on fossil fuels, less money to Middle East Shieks, etc..

GET SERIOUS ABOUT GREEN TECHNOLOGY! SPEND TAX MONEY TO GROW GREEN TECH :hatsoff:

LukeEl
2010-01-27, 17:20
B- and that scratch and sniff sticker that smells like pepperoni pizza

Facial_King
2010-01-27, 17:21
He hasn't been even 20% as progressive as he marketed himself as during the campaign.

He's been a big disappointment, but when I say that let me be clear that it's because I think he hasn't made the left turn that he was voted in on (and is needed), not because he's TOO liberal (what a fucking JOKE!!!)...

I gave him something between the C- and the F...

Dubya was a solid F, of course.

titsrock
2010-01-27, 17:31
^
Dubya doesn't qualify for a letter grade. I wish he would've earned an IMP (each :thumbsup:)

The damage he unleashed on our country, apparently, is even too great for Obama to fix!

It's time for Obama to GET. SHIT. DONE. Look for thanks from Republicans later...once the results of CHANGE are in :hatsoff:

Legzman
2010-01-27, 18:53
F. I'll hold off on the F- for now...

He hasn't done shit to positively affect me so fuck him! Where is this change of which he spat around every fuckin day during his campaign? :dunno:

roronoa3000
2010-01-27, 20:40
Cant get much done when the only word the Republicans know is NO

Jack Davenport
2010-01-27, 21:36
Jagger, specifically what roadblocks and landmines have been in Obama's way? I hope you aren't trying to say that the republicans have been able to obstruct anything. The dems have a super majority remember? If anything has been in his way it has been coming from his own party in the form of blue dog dems worrying about their seats in November in the name of political expediency.

The Republicans cannot be obstructionists this time around, if the dems wanted to pass free Cadillacs for everyone and stuck together it would happen tomorrow. But you are correct about one thing, wholesale changes are going to take place in November. Madame Pelosi needs to enjoy her night in the limelight a new speaker will be in her chair next year.

jod0565
2010-01-27, 21:38
Where is this change of which he spat around every fuckin day during his campaign? :dunno:

In your pocket.

titsrock
2010-01-27, 21:54
Jagger, specifically what roadblocks and landmines have been in Obama's way? I hope you aren't trying to say that the republicans have been able to obstruct anything. The dems have a super majority remember? If anything has been in his way it has been coming from his own party in the form of blue dog dems worrying about their seats in November in the name of political expediency.

The Republicans cannot be obstructionists this time around, if the dems wanted to pass free Cadillacs for everyone and stuck together it would happen tomorrow. But you are correct about one thing, wholesale changes are going to take place in November. Madame Pelosi needs to enjoy her night in the limelight a new speaker will be in her chair next year.

The Dems do not have a Super Majority. They have majorities in Congress and a Dem is President. The Republicans have Filibuster capability. If the people of Massachusetts HAD ANY BRAINS they would've voted in Martha Coakley and the Dems WOULD be able to TRULY ignore Republicans.

The House runs on simple majority. The Dems can pass whatever they want in the House. The can't get anything through the Senate.

The Senate needs to be CHANGED to be run like the House--a simple Majority.

Why Montana has the same "power" as California is a sham to Democracy...the Senate is nothing more than obstructionist to THE PEOPLE...

sporty_carr
2010-01-27, 22:09
I'm gonna be nice and give him a D-.

I would like him to turn the country around.....but I really doubt he's going to have much impact in the next 3 years. He's just not a strong leader.

I agree with Jagger....we need a new party/system.

Jack Davenport
2010-01-27, 22:13
Double post

Jack Davenport
2010-01-27, 22:17
The Dems do not have a Super Majority. They have majorities in Congress and a Dem is President. The Republicans have Filibuster capability. If the people of Massachusetts HAD ANY BRAINS they would've voted in Martha Coakley and the Dems WOULD be able to TRULY ignore Republicans.

The House runs on simple majority. The Dems can pass whatever they want in the House. The can't get anything through the Senate.

The Senate needs to be CHANGED to be run like the House--a simple Majority.

Why Montana has the same "power" as California is a sham to Democracy...the Senate is nothing more than obstructionist to THE PEOPLE...

I do not need an education on how congress tallies it votes. Bernie Sanders and Joe Lieberman both vote with the Dems. Lieberman will part ways when it comes to defense and national security but he is an independent and caucuses with them. Add a couple of RINO republicans and it is a supermajority no matter how you try and slice it. That has changed since Scott Brown was elected of course But the dems run the show and there is not a damn thing the republicans can do about anything but sit and watch. Anything that does or does not happen at this point and time is totally on the dems watch.

titsrock
2010-01-27, 22:19
^You may not need an education but you clearly pay no attention to "the real world." You don't seem to be aware of Joe Lieberman's antics with Healthcare. You seem to not know that there are no sensible Republican Senators except for Olympia Snowe and she didn't have the courage/will to stand alone. :dunno:

The Republicans can stop everything. Everything must eventually come through the Senate. Fact.

We can always remove the Senate as a Political body :thumbsup: That would save millions in tax paid salaries to people who are too comfy in their jobs. I'm willing to send good Dem Senators home for the prospect of sending bad Republicans home. That's compromise I can believe in!

Jack Davenport
2010-01-27, 22:33
^You may not need an education but you clearly pay no attention to "the real world." You don't seem to be aware of Joe Lieberman's antics with Healthcare. You seem to not know that there are no sensible Republican Senators except for Olympia Snowe and she didn't have the courage/will to stand alone. :dunno:

The Republicans can stop everything. Everything must eventually come through the Senate. Fact.

We can always remove the Senate as a Political body :thumbsup: That would save millions in tax paid salaries to people who are too comfy in their jobs. I'm willing to send good Dem Senators home for the prospect of sending bad Republicans home. That's compromise I can believe in!

Olympia Snowe= courageous :1orglaugh


I am sure you had the same opinion of Zell Miller. We can split hairs all day long but Joe Lieberman isn't stopping shit on his own. Especially after picking up Specter and the always reliable Maine sisters. The bottom line is that the dens can get 90 percent of what they want. You lost all credibilty with your comments on Snowe. You can always tell a worthless republican if the dems love them.

titsrock
2010-01-27, 22:52
^
The only thing that's laughable is the Dems kowtowing to court 1 single Elephant vote and then call legislation "bipartisanship." Bipartisanship is when you get half of the opposition (or more) to go along.

Hopefully tonight the Dems and Obama learned to not bother with the Republicans and it's better to make deals with Coward Blue Dog Dems than chase a single Republican.

If Scott Brown goes to Washington and says (on Healthcare), "I will vote for what my state has," than I can go with that. It's not precisely what I want but it's better than what's in Congress now.

D-rock
2010-01-27, 22:59
I give him a D/D+ grade. If were grading him on a curve though I would give him a B-, maybe a B on a good day just because he's been put into a situation so difficult almost nobody could have done well.

There are some things I don't like about what he has done.

He focused on the wrong people with the economy, handled the bailouts very badly, gave too many breaks to financial corporations that didn't deserve it and catered to them first, focused to much on financial institutions and structures instead of real life normal people that are getting desperate, had a trickle down economic plan when he should of had a trickle up one, the stimulus was too little, didn't go to the right people, didn't crate that many jobs and didn't create any lasting jobs. He's afraid to raise any taxes on the rich even when he needs to do it to get any reasonable relief for everybody else because unfortunately even democrats are starting to side with them now in their economic thinking. In all he has too many play-baby half-ass answers on the economy when drastically significant action is needed even if that borders on socialism with some things.

Lets also not fool ourselves we are not out of the woods yet. The worst is not over, and even when it does get over it will takes years and years and year and years to get back to something that is acceptable, if ever. This isn't like past recessions. Not only are so many people laid off, but with so many people with reduced hours and reduced wages and salaries and reduced benefits it will take a long time for just those people to get back to normal before fully laid off people even start to come back. I wouldn't be surprised if 7%-9% unemployment becomes the new normal for a long time to come, even after we start recovering or maybe even after we have "recovered". If in that time we have another recession, even a normal one we are very VERY screwed. I think there is a possibility the US will never be the same. I know it will be whole generations before Michigan recovers if it ever does, and the way it's going it very well might never happen. Even if it does there is a good chance I will be an old man by the time it happens.

Relying on getting the populace, especially the significant and growing masses of the poor in high tech or jobs that require a lot of education WILL NOT WORK. Too many people didn't have the resources to make that happen, the government and the people in the country didn't want to invest the resources when they were needed and never had the political will to even make it remotely possible with our society from the begging, and we were not set up as a society to even begin making that happen for a lot of other reasons. We have also made things more efficient to the point of eliminating people for the profit of few not making things more efficient for the betterment of everybody. It seems that all the capitalist out there thought we would just get all those nice new jobs by now, and we would all become educated, that even a lot of the high end jobs wouldn't leave in outsourcing even though nothing was stopping them, and we would have the resources to do all that and live happily ever after while all our virtual slaves of globalization made cheap crap for us to by cheaply. That was just so far removed from reality even if most people with common sense could see the foolishness of it and tell you that in about ten seconds of listening to that way of thinking. There was just too many problems that made that totally unrealistic, and guess what? It turned out to be a disaster, even if it was one anybody with common sense could see coming a mile away, like two trains about to collide but unable to stop even as the passengers can see it happening well before hand. Our reward for that is we sacrificed our own people so we can buy cheap things from Wal-Mart made by people we have exploited even more than the people here.

As far as health care goes, I agree with the people that think he should have never let other people take the initiative away from him on it. I also think he compromised way too much on it, watered it down too much, sold out to get some of the last votes he thought he was going to need from people playing the game before losing the supermajority (although lets be honest, his "supermajority" was always the very loosest and most tenuous of ones and he never really had one except in name) and again has done play-baby measures with trying to fix it and doesn't make it go far enough. Half-assed solutions don't fix problems.

Also there will not be a bits and pieces strategy with health care that will work. So many things are interconnected with it will just screw up something else if only one thing is fixed unless everything about it is fixed and overhauled.

We need good fixes and we need them yesterday. Everybody is talking and not doing anything to actually fix the problems, like that always happens with them, even Obama.

titsrock
2010-01-27, 23:05
^
Good post. We're also looking past the fact that with the recent SCOTUS ruling, special interests and Corporations are going to exert even more influence, so, really, we shouldn't get our hopes up for any change. It's nice to dream, though.

Crazy4theBrat
2010-01-28, 21:13
If there was an option for it, I would have given him a D+. Although, as Tommy Boy said, "That's not a grade I like to give out."

~~whimsy~~
2010-01-28, 23:22
Looks like he bit off more than he could chew pretty much. Ah well. He got it he will deal with it. At least until 2012.

tiger1977
2010-01-28, 23:25
He had no idea what he was getting into, obviously. It is hard to imagine the POTUS is slightly more than being a community organizer. At least for people with no knowledge of the office, I guess.

abejarano12
2010-01-28, 23:46
I'll give him a C. He has done alot to return America to the status that it once had. He has worked the problem of the economy and has been trying to fix this so it can never happen again. Healthcare reform needs to happen. Also over seas he is moving out of Iraq and go to shift Afganistan and after terrorist. I don't want to keep repeating this but he has tried to work with the Republicans but they seem not to what to try.

Jack Davenport
2010-01-29, 00:52
I'll give him a C. He has done alot to return America to the status that it once had.

Yeah, like return us to 1929.

bodie54
2010-01-29, 02:27
He had no idea what he was getting into, obviously. It is hard to imagine the POTUS is slightly more than being a community organizer. At least for people with no knowledge of the office, I guess.

Slightly more?

After his stint as a community organizer Obama attended Harvard Law school, where he was selected as president of the prestigious Harvard Law Review. He graduated magna cum laude, then taught Constitutional law for 12 years at the University of Chicago. He also served on the board of directors of five significant organizations including the Chicago Annenberg Challenge. After that he was an Illinois state senator for eight years (1996 to 2004), and Chairman of the Illinois Senate's Health and Human Services committee. In November 2004 he was elected to the United States senate, and served in that capacity until his election to president in Nov 2008.

But no matter, in the mindless wasteland of right wing media and its disciples, where idiotic, factually bankrupt sound bites are endlessly looped, he's still portrayed as little more than a community organizer :rolleyes:

hedonis
2010-01-29, 04:09
but Obama for the most part repaired America's reputation on the world stage even before he even became president.

No... he didn't.

Muslims still hate us, Chavez and Daniel Ortega are even worse (Often Chavez openly mocks Obama), clearly the North Koreans are still doing the same stuff, there's been nothing that could be called progress made with regard to Iran's nuclear ambitions, European leaders scolded and made fun of him, Russia will pretty soon be back under the control of an ex KGB guy (Putin), who wants a very old school Russia, we've already been accused by France of trying to "occupy" Haiti, and his secretary of state has been largely ignored everywhere she's gone.

There's been no improvement in the US reputation on the world stage- we're just viewed as weaker, and prone to waffling now.

H

Jagger69
2010-01-29, 08:31
Jagger, specifically what roadblocks and landmines have been in Obama's way? I hope you aren't trying to say that the republicans have been able to obstruct anything.

Oh my gosh no, BC....I would never intimate that the republicans have done anything to undermine the agenda of this administration :rolleyes: The fact that there are (were) 40 (now 41) of them in the senate created the exact scenario you describe....when a political whore like Joe Lieberman holds the whole country hostage. Why it takes a 60% majority in the fucking Senate is beyond me anyway. If a presidential candidate wins 59% of the vote, they call it a landslide. Yet, to get simple legislation through the Senate, it takes a "super-majority". Insane. And, it cuts both ways. Republicans will never be able to achieve their agenda (whatever that is....just say "No" perhaps?) when they return to power either. It's a huge reason that the American political system doesn't work....period.

Another huge roadblock has been the economic mess that was handed to him by Bush and crew....everybody blames Obama for the mess we are in and, as POTUS, he has to accept responsibility for where we are right now so I'm not making excuses for him but the right wing seems to act like they are blameless for this fiasco when the truth of the matter is, there is plenty of blame to go around on both sides of the aisle.


I'll give him a C. He has done alot to return America to the status that it once had.


Yeah, like return us to 1929.

See my final sentence above.


Slightly more?

After his stint as a community organizer Obama attended Harvard Law school, where he was selected as president of the prestigious Harvard Law Review. He graduated magna cum laude, then taught Constitutional law for 12 years at the University of Chicago. He also served on the board of directors of five significant organizations including the Chicago Annenberg Challenge. After that he was an Illinois state senator for eight years (1996 to 2004), and Chairman of the Illinois Senate's Health and Human Services committee. In November 2004 he was elected to the United States senate, and served in that capacity until his election to president in Nov 2008.

But no matter, in the mindless wasteland of right wing media and its disciples, where idiotic, factually bankrupt sound bites are endlessly looped, he's still portrayed as little more than a community organizer :rolleyes:

Yeah....I love it when detractors play the "inexperience" card when it comes to Obama. Bush was governor of Texas ....that's it. No prior political experience at all. Before that, he owned part of a really shitty baseball team in Dallas and ran an oil company that was financed by his dad into the ground.

Again, all the partisan posturing....democrats versus republicans. Neither one of them have the answer to our problems. Hence, they are bound to continue more or less unabated and, in all probability, be exacerbated as we move into the future. Pretty simple equation when you think about it. I am disappointed in Obama so far but I am also totally disgusted with the American political system. It's rotten to the core.

JacknCoke
2010-01-29, 09:32
It would be interesting to hear form someone who gave him an F unless they just did it out of spite...

derfdp
2013-03-09, 10:55
OK. I gave (give) Obama an F. Let me state up front: both parties are incompetent fools, in my opinion; neither one much better than the other.

But... The government of this country under this man is an abject failure of divisiveness, arrogance, cronyism, and sheer incompetence. Where is the leadership? Where are the concrete, meaningful ideas? His utter lack of experience in real-world leadership of getting things done shows in his handling of many issues and in his relations with the Republicans. (to the earlier poster, GW Bush had far more practical governmental experience than Obama from both his family background and his time as governor, not to mention business experience Obama? A couple of unproductive years in the Illinois senate and even less in the US senate. But frankly, I don't necessarily believe governmental experience is truly critical to do the job.) His ideological pursuit big government at any cost will destroy this country if allowed to go unchecked - and notice, aside from his desire to punish and steal from the successful, he is a big fan of governmental secrecy :suspicious: and intrusive, strong-arm governmental tactics; a very, very dangerous combination. Summary: just another dirty Chicago politician and not even as competent as Daly (1st or 2nd). Hillary was such a better choice...

Let's pick one example. Taxes. There is no "fair share": is is NOT a moral issue.:hairpull: The government has no right to claim the fruits of my labor: it is mine, and mine alone, and I know best how to spend, save, or invest it. If you are poor, it is not my fault (let see, did you stay in school, for one?) which is not to say I am unwilling to help. Yes, some government is necessary, but not much, frankly. Everyone is in favor of roads, schools, research, education, parks, clean air, etc, etc, etc. (Personally, I think we should all have a mansion and a Ferrari) But we cannot pay for it all.:bang: Period. The issue is what government is necessary, and how do we pay for it, not fairness. It is not "fair" to take more (percentage) of one person's (money) income than another's just because they make more: a flat tax of, say 10%, makes higher earners pay more by definition than lower earners. Taking an increasing share (%) is punitive and disincentivizing. You say it "hurts" you more to give that dollar? So, you just want to take out your situation on some one else then? Everyone should suffer because of you? Everyone pays for the government or no one, in my opinion: if you make a million, you'll pay $1K, if you make $10, you'll pay a buck. No exemptions, no deductions, no excuses for anyone. If taxes go up, everyone's taxes go up. It's just so, so easy to raise taxes on the other guy, isn't it - raise taxes on your own damn self. (I say lets mandate that no Hollywood actor/actress can keep more than 100K (and maybe this should go for Democrats, too), and Warren Buffett must surrender every penny of his money to the government.) Government is not "free", people, the money has to come from somewhere. Government does not produce anything, it does not earn money (just prints it). Further, whoever pays the bills has the final say, so the more money you give the government, the more the government gets to tell you what to do and how to do it. Great stuff, if you can't figure out how to survive and live life on your own... I guess Obama would like to be like the Cubans and the Chinese, and the Russians, etc - let's make everyone poor - that's fair. Oh, I forgot, the politicians get to be rich and powerful; you will still be poor, however.

There are so, so many things with this man, I don't even know where to begin...

meesterperfect
2013-03-09, 11:58
yeah but that's a good start.

Johan
2013-03-09, 12:33
[Sam Fisher]
I give him Z-
[/Sam Fisher]

Sam Fisher
2013-03-09, 17:24
I gave the sonofabitch an F-

zeeblofowl_1969
2013-03-09, 23:54
I gave the sonofabitch an F-

That'll show him

georges
2013-03-10, 01:04
D- and you know why

Sam Fisher
2013-03-10, 10:53
That'll show him

Fag

Mayhem
2013-03-10, 14:31
Fag

You're in no position to call anyone names, you pussy-ass, hillbilly chickenshit.

bobjustbob
2013-03-12, 03:26
He had a lot of shit dumped on him. He kept the Bush tax cuts for the most part. The bail outs worked for the most part. If he didn't extend unemployment then there would be millions of people in very fucked up situations. Wall St. didn't get spooked. He learned what war was all about and didn't cave into the far left. Shoving that health care shit up our asses was neither timely or good policy. I'll give the guy a C.

Straight Shooter
2018-08-09, 20:27
He had a lot of shit dumped on him. He kept the Bush tax cuts for the most part. The bail outs worked for the most part. If he didn't extend unemployment then there would be millions of people in very fucked up situations. Wall St. didn't get spooked. He learned what war was all about and didn't cave into the far left. Shoving that health care shit up our asses was neither timely or good policy. I'll give the guy a C.

I say solid B+. There should've been a public option added to ACA.

georges
2018-08-10, 17:17
Here are the result from Obama's presidency so far

Straight Shooter
2018-08-10, 19:36
Here are the result from Obama's presidency so far

Fake, Fake. Fake

pool_hustler
2018-08-10, 21:06
I say solid B+. There should've been a public option added to ACA.

I give him a B

Jack Davenport
2018-08-10, 22:03
Worst cotdam president ever. And Georges meme is not fake. It’s fucking accurate.

Straight Shooter
2018-08-10, 22:29
I give him a B

Now that I think about it I give him a B- almost borderline C. Two reasons: A, it's a travesty that no one on Wall Street went to jail for the Great Recession. B, he should've retaliated against Putin for the DNC hacks. Sanctions and a personal visit telling Putin to "cut it out" was not enough Those are my two biggest gripes with that administration. Other than that greatest POTUS ever

georges
2018-08-11, 05:54
Fake, Fake. Fake

No, it isn't. You can't apparently deal with the reality and of course with undisputed facts
Emails show Obama WH planned to use Sandy Hook shooting for Political Gain
https://www.westernjournal.com/emails-show-obama-wh-planned-to-use-sandy-hook-shooting-for-political-gain/?utm_source=Email&utm_medium=conservative-brief-CT&utm_campaign=dailyam&utm_content=conservative-tribune
Yes he was a Senator of Illinois but a bad one because court ruling sent Illinois into a financial abyss:
https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-07-01/horrific-catastrophic-court-ruling-send-illinois-financial-abyss
This meant that Illinois state had a debt of $14,711,351,943.90 in overdue bills as of June 30 of year 2017 and Illinois was led by Democrats not by Republicans as far as I know.
Also Obamanomics were far to be enamoring and successful as Obama claims, in fact they gave beyond poor results:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/peterferrara/2012/07/12/obamanomics-the-final-nail-in-the-discredited-keynesian-coffin/#78ebdf64ba7d
The reflection about his presidency says a lot about him.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/apr/28/barack-obama-presidential-legacy-economy
Obama Administration opened US financial system to Iran
https://www.westernjournal.com/report-obama-administration-opened-us-financial-system-to-iran/

So what were you saying????Obama did this, Obama did that? Time to change the vinyl and the song.

pool_hustler
2018-08-11, 07:50
Yes he was a Senator of Illinois but a bad one because court ruling sent Illinois into a financial abyss

lol That ruling was made in 2017.
Obama was last an Illinois senator in 2004.

georges
2018-08-11, 08:25
Yes he was a Senator of Illinois but a bad one because court ruling sent Illinois into a financial abyss

lol That ruling was made in 2017.
Obama was last an Illinois senator in 2004.

Doesn't matter, once a mismanager always a mismanager. Just see the brilliant results of 8 years of Obama's presidency

Straight Shooter
2018-08-11, 13:37
Doesn't matter, once a mismanager always a mismanager. Just see the brilliant results of 8 years of Obama's presidency

But whatabout Trump???????

pool_hustler
2018-08-11, 14:41
Doesn't matter

Facts matter. And the fact is you blamed Obama for a judge's decision that was made 13 years after he left office.

pool_hustler
2018-08-11, 14:43
Hard to believe this poll got 83 responses.

Wow. This forum really has pretty well emptied out.

animus fox
2018-08-11, 16:32
we're at 4+% GDP and we're comparing report cards.

a socialist banana republic economy (you didn't build that) vs. an actual American one.


fuck the shitty left.

animus fox
2018-08-11, 17:09
Now that I think about it I give him a B- almost borderline C. Two reasons: A, it's a travesty that no one on Wall Street went to jail for the Great Recession. B, he should've retaliated against Putin for the DNC hacks. Sanctions and a personal visit telling Putin to "cut it out" was not enough Those are my two biggest gripes with that administration. Other than that greatest POTUS ever

what should he have done as retaliation against Putin beyond sanctions?