• 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!

Is Obama afraid to lead? [W:143]

Moot said:
Does anyone really expect the right wing to say Obama is a good leader? I certainly don't. So really this thread is little more than a wanker thread for the right wing to help make themselves feel better about losing the election. The sad thing is they have to lie to themselves to do it.
Click to expand...

There are more than a few "right wing" who have said that President Clinton was a capable leader who was able to lead and work with those across the aisle in Congress. That's the sign of leadership.
 
APACHERAT said:
There are more than a few "right wing" who have said that President Clinton was a capable leader who was able to lead and work with those across the aisle in Congress. That's the sign of leadership.
Click to expand...

Look where that got us, NAFTA.
 
Jack Hays said:
Not sure why you would say that. I have no party affiliation and no partisan axe to grind. I have voted for Repubs, Dems and third parties. Krauthammer makes a provocative and persuasive point. Why do you fear that?:peace
Click to expand...

Because it's provocative and persuasive.
 
Jack Hays said:
NAFTA is a good thing. It makes all the signatory countries richer.:peace
Click to expand...

No it ships jobs overseas to paid chinese peasants low wages and takes away jobs from americans. Why because ceo's don't want to pay a good wage to no one.
 
jag2594 said:
No it ships jobs overseas to paid chinese peasants low wages and takes away jobs from americans. Why because ceo's don't want to pay a good wage to no one.
Click to expand...

NAFTA has nothing to do with China. NAFTA deals only with Canada, the US and Mexico. Beyond that, free trade enriches all participants.:peace
 
Jack Hays said:
NAFTA has nothing to do with China. NAFTA deals only with Canada, the US and Mexico. Beyond that, free trade enriches all participants.:peace
Click to expand...

Sorry paying Mexicans slave wages. Of course you love leaders so you love CEO's. Also love making them rich don't ya.
 
Jack Hays said:
Free trade makes us all richer.:peace
Click to expand...

No sending jobs overseas that hardworking americans need. Maybe you if your rich, but not the majority.
 
jag2594 said:
No sending jobs overseas that hardworking americans need. Maybe you if your rich, but not the majority.
Click to expand...

Free trade promotes American exports and makes the things we buy cheaper. It's good for everyone.:peace
 
specklebang said:
Semantics are the cornerstones of politics.

Name a President who said "My fellow Americans. We have a problem and I don't have a clue what to do about it".
Click to expand...

I recall both Bush's and Clinton saying as much. Of course not directly, but you can read when they are clueless.
 
This has nothing to do with politics, but I don't understand why folks think Obama is a great orator. His cadence is off--he always pauses at peculiar places, and it drives me nuts.
 
nota bene said:
This has nothing to do with politics, but I don't understand why folks think Obama is a great orator. His cadence is off--he always pauses at peculiar places, and it drives me nuts.
Click to expand...

Yeah, those long drawn out "aaaaaaaaaaaaand's" are kind of annoying.
 
Is Obama afraid to lead?

Moot said:
I just think if you're going to call Obama a poor leader it helps to know we could have a worse one.
Click to expand...

Romney has a history of success. Obama has...Chicago. I don't know what kind of a president Romney would have been (and neither do you) but we all see clearly what kind of a failure Obama is. No amount of attempts at diversion will change that ugly fact.
 
Jack Hays said:
And now the ad hominem, the definitive marker for intellectual bankruptcy. Did you even read Krauthammer's column? You have brought agit-prop to a serious discussion, and that leaves you at a disadvantage.:peace
Click to expand...

Yes, I read Krauthammer's column and dare I say he seems to be suffering from Obama Derangement Syndrome
 
Moot said:
Romney was the chosen leader of the right wing. He lost the election because the country didn't think he would make a good leader. Obama was elected because he is a better leader than Romney.
Click to expand...

No.

Obama just had more charisma, and would be a better used car salesman the Romney as well.
 
He refuses to take any democrat to the woodshed to whip their backsides, and until he does, he cannot lead the country because he is not leading his own party. Now that said, I really don't mind him being impotent and Washington being in gridlock because from what he does stand up on, can't say I agree with much of it or any variation of much of it.
 
Arbo said:
I recall both Bush's and Clinton saying as much. Of course not directly, but you can read when they are clueless.
Click to expand...

Sure, but we're discussing political semantics so I'm just illustrating that they don't have a clue but they never say so. Despite having a billion times more information than we do, there are a lot of things about which they are not so much clueless but conflicted. Unfortunately, to some degree, they have to please as many people as they can so they are rendered clueless because they can't balance out the gains and losses. But you'll never hear those words:)
 
VanceMack said:
Romney has a history of success. Obama has...Chicago. I don't know what kind of a president Romney would have been (and neither do you) but we all see clearly what kind of a failure Obama is. No amount of attempts at diversion will change that ugly fact.
Click to expand...

I think I know what kind of leader Romney would have been based by his record as Governor. However, he chose not to campaign on his experience as a leader....so if he didn't believe in his own achievements and principles, then why should anyone else?

Obama was a lawyer, a constitutional law professor and a community activist making him a self made man. Whereas, Romney inherited his wealth and couldn't escape his elitism to identify with average americans.
 
Is Obama afraid to lead?

Moot said:
I think I know what kind of leader Romney would have been based by his record as Governor. However, he chose not to campaign on his experience as a leader....so if he didn't believe in his own achievements and principles, then why should anyone else?

Obama was a lawyer, a constitutional law professor and a community activist making him a self made man. Whereas, Romney inherited his wealth and couldn't escape his elitism to identify with average americans.
Click to expand...

Dave the grinder plays a lousy bongo and Obama is still a lousy leader.
 
VanceMack said:
Dave the grinder plays a lousy bongo and Obama is still a lousy leader.
Click to expand...

He's certainly not a great leader, but he's not the worst, either.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom