Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Obama's Presidency Vote Watch

  • View Poll Results: How has Barack Obama performed as POTUS?
    Very Well
    751
    40.62%
    Moderately Well
    589
    31.86%
    Neither Well nor Poorly / Don't Know
    241
    13.03%
    Moderately Poorly
    135
    7.30%
    Poorly
    133
    7.19%

    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    I don't understand the triumphalism surrounding his presidency. I like him on a personal level too but I want to know what he's done that it's so amazing on a political level. His policies led to (or at least were one of the reasons for) the Donald becoming the new president of the US.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by aeroline1999)
    He was like Watchdogs 1, just didn't live up to the hype. Not even close
    Does this mean WatchDogs 2 is better? I haven't played it but I know the soundtrack is good because people keep commenting WatchDogs stuff on the music I like.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RainbowMan)
    I don't understand the triumphalism surrounding his presidency. I like him on a personal level too but I want to know what he's done that it's so amazing on a political level. His policies led to (or at least were one of the reasons for) the Donald becoming the new president of the US.
    Is being black not enough?

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    It can't have been that good if the America he left behind voted for Trump.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by sleepysnooze)
    people who think obama did well politically don't follow politics
    from left to right, most people understand that he was a total disappointment
    "but hey, he was a funny black guy, so therefore he was the dog's *******s"
    they won't tell you to your face but that is the only reason they voted for him doing "very well"
    I mean, what if he were a charismatic dictator? is it all really that relative?
    why not judge it all objectively and absolutely on their policies and not personalities?
    '"but hey, he was a funny black guy, so therefore he was the dog's *******s"

    90% of the conversations I've had about Obama devolve into this.
    • Offline

      17
      (Original post by sleepysnooze)
      people who think obama did well politically don't follow politics
      from left to right, most people understand that he was a total disappointment
      "but hey, he was a funny black guy, so therefore he was the dog's *******s"
      they won't tell you to your face but that is the only reason they voted for him doing "very well"
      I mean, what if he were a charismatic dictator? is it all really that relative?
      why not judge it all objectively and absolutely on their policies and not personalities?
      It's not like the other side of the divide are unbiased.

      People that support him will overemphasise his successes.
      People that don't like him will overemphasise his failures.
      There are only one or two unbiased comments concerning his presidency on this thread.
      Offline

      3
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by StrawbAri)
      It's not like the other side of the divide are unbiased.

      People that support him will overemphasise his successes.
      People that don't like him will overemphasise his failures.
      There are only one or two unbiased comments concerning his presidency on this thread.
      I'm claiming that both people, from the left to the right, who actually follow politics, understand that obama was nothing more than a token. people in the USA, for instance, voted for him to prove to the world that america isn't racist any more, and if that's honestly what they wanted to do then fair enough, it's their nation, but I'm obviously critical of the politician obama himself, not the token. the token is a legitimate token, I can't say that it isn't, because hey, he *is* black. but what about his policies? people can only really talk about obama care which isn't exactly proving to be a significant success. also, it's hilarious too that his biggest failure in my honest opinion, which is his role in foreign policy, isn't recognised more seriously by those that support him - he is (or was) a hawk. a neocon. a left wing bush. he bombed more countries than bush even did, and actually expanded all his wars past the point that bush himself would have. people who think obama was good are the same people who think michelle obama was relevant to anything - "ohh they're funny and friends with ellen degeneres so they're awesome!!" - that's not an opinion I can really respect. and that generally *is* the format of most people's praise. they won't tend to name policies but they'll give you sprinklings of "oh well he did a good job" - it just sounds like the lines monarchists in this country come out with. and it reminds me even more of the praise of hilary clinton despite the fact that she is MORE of a bush than obama was (as if that was ever possible!).

      they'll brush past the fact that she wanted to start a war with russia with the tokenism of feminism. and I think that's truly pathetic. america ought to have a *good* female president, not a female president blank-cheque. that was the problem with obama - he wasn't a man with policies, he was a symbol of "change", and "change" in that context literally meant **** all. so he didn't embody a concept. he symbolised literally the expression "change", which had no meaning. we could switch the word "change" for "scooby doo" or "nincumpoop" and so long as the people liked hearing that word it would have been equally helpful for him to represent those words. he was an establishment goon and nothing more - the establishment just changed the skin tone of their puppet, really. it sounds quite pessimistic but how is it false? he did practically nothing to change anything. so it's pretty good in my opinion to know america elected trump - trump is a lot better than people tend to suggest, because it is silly to say that he's a bad politician simply because he is a tv celebrity. he was more than merely that - he was a very successful businessman and negotiator (in a non-political context, but whatever). it's not like he's bringing *nothing* to the table aside from his policy pallet which I legitimately think is at least respectable in contrast with both hilary's and obama's.
      • Offline

        17
        (Original post by sleepysnooze)
        I'm claiming that both people, from the left to the right, who actually follow politics, understand that obama was nothing more than a token. people in the USA, for instance, voted for him to prove to the world that america isn't racist any more, and if that's honestly what they wanted to do then fair enough, it's their nation, but I'm obviously critical of the politician obama himself, not the token. the token is a legitimate token, I can't say that it isn't, because hey, he *is* black. but what about his policies? people can only really talk about obama care which isn't exactly proving to be a significant success. also, it's hilarious too that his biggest failure in my honest opinion, which is his role in foreign policy, isn't recognised more seriously by those that support him - he is (or was) a hawk. a neocon. a left wing bush. he bombed more countries than bush even did, and actually expanded all his wars past the point that bush himself would have. people who think obama was good are the same people who think michelle obama was relevant to anything - "ohh they're funny and friends with ellen degeneres so they're awesome!!" - that's not an opinion I can really respect. and that generally *is* the format of most people's praise. they won't tend to name policies but they'll give you sprinklings of "oh well he did a good job" - it just sounds like the lines monarchists in this country come out with. and it reminds me even more of the praise of hilary clinton despite the fact that she is MORE of a bush than obama was (as if that was ever possible!).

        they'll brush past the fact that she wanted to start a war with russia with the tokenism of feminism. and I think that's truly pathetic. america ought to have a *good* female president, not a female president blank-cheque. that was the problem with obama - he wasn't a man with policies, he was a symbol of "change", and "change" in that context literally meant **** all. he was an establishment goon and nothing more - the establishment just changed the skin tone of their puppet, really. it sounds quite pessimistic but how is it false? he did practically nothing to change anything. so it's pretty good in my opinion to know america elected trump - trump is a lot better than people tend to suggest, because it is silly to say that he's a bad politician simply because he is a tv celebrity. he was more than merely that - he was a very successful businessman and negotiator (in a non-political context, but whatever). it's not like he's bringing *nothing* to the table aside from his policy pallet which I legitimately think is at least respectable in contrast with both hilary's and obama's.
        Obama's presidency wasn't perfect. There were failures. There were successes. It wasn't one big massive failure like some people make it out to be nor was it a massive success like others suggest.

        If he was just a token then he would only have been elected for one term.
        Even then this is America. 60%+ of the population is white. They are the biggest demographic. A proportion of that are conservative and quite frankly don't care whether the president was an easy going black guy. They care more about the welfare of their country than the PR they get for having a black president. You can tell this is true because they voted for a man that gives their country lots of bad PR but they believe he was a better option than the other candidate that would have been brilliant for their PR and tokenism.

        They voted for him for the second term because they felt despite the issues he was a better option than the alternative. (If you kept up with the 2012 elections and read articles from non democrats you'd see this was a common opinion)
        Anyway will any black/ethnic minorty presidents that come after him also be tokens?

        You also have to take into consideration that for 6 years of his presidency the congress wasn't on his side. Given the restrictions, he did better than would be expected.
        He met the minimum requirements for an average presidency, ****ed up a few times and that's how it's been with most of the presidents recently (FDR being probably one of the only ones to perform very above average in fairly recent times).
        • Thread Starter
        Offline

        2
        ReputationRep:
        (Original post by StrawbAri)
        Obama's presidency wasn't perfect. There were failures. There were successes. It wasn't one big massive failure like some people make it out to be nor was it a massive success like others suggest.

        If he was just a token then he would only have been elected for one term.
        Even then this is America. 60%+ of the population is white. They are the biggest demographic. A proportion of that are conservative and quite frankly don't care whether the president was an easy going black guy. They care more about the welfare of their country than the PR they get for having a black president. You can tell this is true because they voted for a man that gives their country lots of bad PR but they believe he was a better option than the other candidate that would have been brilliant for their PR and tokenism.

        They voted for him for the second term because they felt despite the issues he was a better option than the alternative. (If you kept up with the 2012 elections and read articles from non democrats you'd see this was a common opinion)
        Anyway will any black/ethnic minorty presidents that come after him also be tokens?

        You also have to take into consideration that for 6 years of his presidency the congress wasn't on his side. Given the restrictions, he did better than would be expected.
        He met the minimum requirements for an average presidency, ****ed up a few times and that's how it's been with most of the presidents recently (FDR being probably one of the only ones to perform very above average in fairly recent times).
        I don't think he was a token insofar as he was elected purely because he was black. I think he's a uniquely talented politician who was unqualified to be President and turned out to be pretty bad at it when he got elected. But, as I say, he's remarkably good at politics so he'll basically get off with a middling historical approval rating when he deserves (if not the worst one) something in the fourth quartile.
        • Offline

          17
          (Original post by jape)
          I don't think he was a token insofar as he was elected purely because he was black. I think he's a uniquely talented politician who was unqualified to be President and turned out to be pretty bad at it when he got elected. But, as I say, he's remarkably good at politics so he'll basically get off with a middling historical approval rating when he deserves (if not the worst one) something in the fourth quartile.
          You really can't say Obama is Americas worst president or even in the league of worst presidents because America has had some horrible leaders in the past that make Obama look like an angel in the eyes of even the most biased conservative. I.e. James Buchanan, Warren G. Harding, Andrew Johnson etc

          Anyway it's normally a trend to say the most recent president is the worst ever. It's been happening for a long time. Along the line we'll see the true effect of Obama's presidency.
          • Thread Starter
          Offline

          2
          ReputationRep:
          (Original post by StrawbAri)
          You really can't say Obama is Americas worst president or even in the league of worst presidents because America has had some horrible leaders in the past that make Obama look like an angel in the eyes of even the most biased conservative. I.e. James Buchanan, Warren G. Harding, Andrew Johnson etc
          He's definitely in the bottom 10 in terms of actual performance, but he'll be perceived better than he deserves. He's not James Buchanan or Warren Harding, but I've seen George H.W. Bush in the middle of the rankings and I definitely don't think Obama's on Bush's level.
          • Offline

            17
            (Original post by jape)
            He's definitely in the bottom 10 in terms of actual performance, but he'll be perceived better than he deserves. He's not James Buchanan or Warren Harding, but I've seen George H.W. Bush in the middle of the rankings and I definitely don't think Obama's on Bush's level.
            Not according to Presidential Scholars and historians that have consistently ranked him in the second quartile in recent years.

            See here
            • Thread Starter
            Offline

            2
            ReputationRep:
            (Original post by StrawbAri)
            Not according to Presidential Scholars and historians that have consistently ranked him in the second quartile in recent years.

            See here
            I know he'll be ranked highly, as I said, but I have seen next-to-nothing from his administration to show he deserves it.

            He's also the only Nobel Peace Prize winner to bomb six countries after winning his award.

            Being a member of the academic upper-crusts doesn't automatically mean anything.
            Offline

            3
            ReputationRep:
            (Original post by jape)
            Well he's almost out, and unless he does something really good or astonishingly bad with pardons the Obama administration has effectively come to a close.

            How do we think he's done?

            Plus points:
            * The passage of the Affordable Care Act
            * Left Iraq
            * Bin Laden dead
            * Lack of high-profile scandals

            Negatives
            * Foreign Policy ineptitude led to more instability in the Arab World
            * Race relations deteriorated and political polarization rose
            * Slowest economic recovery since 1930s.
            * Numerous incidents of government malpractice (ie Fast and Furious)

            Not many there, I'm sure you know of more, but I'm trying to be as impartial as I can. Vote on your cellphones now.
            The ACA has made healthcare more expensive and has proven to be an awful system.

            Leaving Iraq was the dumbest foreign policy decision since Jimmy Carter let the Shah of Iran fall to a baying mob of Iranian communists, special snowflake liberals and Islamists. He abandoned the country to jihadism, chaos, sectarianism and the predations of its fascistic neighbours, namely Ba'athist Syria and Khomeinist Iran. We are still reaping the fruits of that horrific and idiotic decision, applauded by hateful left-wingers who wanted the war to fail, ignorant isolationists, Bush-demonisers and opponents of America everywhere.

            And is the latter really a point in his favour? It's what we should expect. America used to have presidents of the calibre and personal integrity of a Roosevelt, a Coolidge or a Reagan. (Bush was decent, but not quite on the same level as those titans.) We have since learnt to lower our expectations, foolishly so.

            I would agree with pretty much all the negatives, and furiously so. Let's not forget how he has constantly kow-towed to and appeased Islam, in the manner of an unctuous PR agent, repeating over and over again the lie that it is a religion of peace, refusing to say "radical Islamic terrorism", attacking those like Charlie Hebdo who exercise freedom of speech in mocking the Prophet Muhammad rather than the people that murder them, going on an Apology Tour round the Muslim world, appointing Islamists and their fellow-travelers to committees, attempting rapprochement with Khomeinist Iran and aiding and abetting Iranian imperialism, his arrogance, his censoriousness, his ignorance, his brazen and unctuous stupidity...I could go on forever.

            I think he will go down in history as one of the most mediocre presidents ever to take office, largely insulated from criticism by an oleaginous news-media which worshipped him as the first black president, and dared not call him out on his mistakes for the simple reason of his skin pigmentation.

            I prefer George W. Bush.
            • Thread Starter
            Offline

            2
            ReputationRep:
            (Original post by Cato the Elder)
            The ACA has made healthcare more expensive and has proven to be an awful system.

            Leaving Iraq was the dumbest foreign policy decision since Jimmy Carter let the Shah of Iran fall to a baying mob of Iranian communists, special snowflake liberals and Islamists. He abandoned the country to jihadism, chaos, sectarianism and the predations of its fascistic neighbours, namely Ba'athist Syria and Khomeinist Iran. We are still reaping the fruits of that horrific and idiotic decision, applauded by hateful left-wingers who wanted the war to fail, ignorant isolationists, Bush-demonisers and opponents of America everywhere.

            And is the latter really a point in his favour? It's what we should expect. America used to have presidents of the calibre and personal integrity of a Roosevelt, a Coolidge or a Reagan. (Bush was decent, but not quite on the same level as those titans.) We have since learnt to lower our expectations, foolishly so.

            I would agree with pretty much all the negatives, and furiously so. Let's not forget how he has constantly kow-towed to and appeased Islam, in the manner of an unctuous PR agent, repeating over and over again the lie that it is a religion of peace, refusing to say "radical Islamic terrorism", attacking those like Charlie Hebdo who exercise freedom of speech in mocking the Prophet Muhammad rather than the people that murder them, going on an Apology Tour round the Muslim world, appointing Islamists and their fellow-travelers to committees, attempting rapprochement with Khomeinist Iran and aiding and abetting Iranian imperialism, his arrogance, his censoriousness, his ignorance, his brazen and unctuous stupidity...I could go on forever.

            I think he will go down in history as one of the most mediocre presidents ever to take office, largely insulated from criticism by an oleaginous news-media which worshipped him as the first black president, and dared not call him out on his mistakes for the simple reason of his skin pigmentation.

            I prefer George W. Bush.
            Agree wholeheartedly.
            Offline

            9
            ReputationRep:
            (Original post by Cato the Elder)
            The ACA has made healthcare more expensive and has proven to be an awful system.

            Leaving Iraq was the dumbest foreign policy decision since Jimmy Carter let the Shah of Iran fall to a baying mob of Iranian communists, special snowflake liberals and Islamists. He abandoned the country to jihadism, chaos, sectarianism and the predations of its fascistic neighbours, namely Ba'athist Syria and Khomeinist Iran. We are still reaping the fruits of that horrific and idiotic decision, applauded by hateful left-wingers who wanted the war to fail, ignorant isolationists, Bush-demonisers and opponents of America everywhere.

            And is the latter really a point in his favour? It's what we should expect. America used to have presidents of the calibre and personal integrity of a Roosevelt, a Coolidge or a Reagan. (Bush was decent, but not quite on the same level as those titans.) We have since learnt to lower our expectations, foolishly so.

            I would agree with pretty much all the negatives, and furiously so. Let's not forget how he has constantly kow-towed to and appeased Islam, in the manner of an unctuous PR agent, repeating over and over again the lie that it is a religion of peace, refusing to say "radical Islamic terrorism", attacking those like Charlie Hebdo who exercise freedom of speech in mocking the Prophet Muhammad rather than the people that murder them, going on an Apology Tour round the Muslim world, appointing Islamists and their fellow-travelers to committees, attempting rapprochement with Khomeinist Iran and aiding and abetting Iranian imperialism, his arrogance, his censoriousness, his ignorance, his brazen and unctuous stupidity...I could go on forever.

            I think he will go down in history as one of the most mediocre presidents ever to take office, largely insulated from criticism by an oleaginous news-media which worshipped him as the first black president, and dared not call him out on his mistakes for the simple reason of his skin pigmentation.

            I prefer George W. Bush.
            lol, how is Coolidge a titan?
            • Thread Starter
            Offline

            2
            ReputationRep:
            (Original post by Percypig17)
            lol, how is Coolidge a titan?
            Consistent economic growth, stabilised the administration after the death of a corrupt incumbent President (Harding) and was hugely popular in his day. He's also the best example of small-government constitutional conservatism in American history, better even than Ronald Reagan (who admired Coolidge deeply).
            Offline

            3
            ReputationRep:
            (Original post by jape)
            He's definitely in the bottom 10 in terms of actual performance, but he'll be perceived better than he deserves. He's not James Buchanan or Warren Harding, but I've seen George H.W. Bush in the middle of the rankings and I definitely don't think Obama's on Bush's level.
            You looking forward to Trump?
            • Thread Starter
            Offline

            2
            ReputationRep:
            (Original post by fleky6910)
            You looking forward to Trump?
            I don't expect great things but I hope to be proven wrong. If I were to guess how it'd go I'd say mediocre, but the left is so apoplectic that they have to replace him with a Rand Paul or maybe even Mike Pence. I'd be much happier with those two.
            Offline

            3
            ReputationRep:
            Obama was only in it for the fame, in my opinion. It was crystal clear that he could not care less about the American people.
           
           
           
        • See more of what you like on The Student Room

          You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

        • Poll
          Will you be richer or poorer than your parents?
          Useful resources
        • See more of what you like on The Student Room

          You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

        • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

          Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

          Quick reply
          Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.