• 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!

The Most Divisive Partisan Presidency Since Nixon



don't care... you're having a fundamental misunderstanding of what the word " presidency " means.

sure, Republican have been divisive as well... which is no way is evidence of Obama not being divisive.

it's plain old fact that Obama has not been about uniting anyone... he's most certainly divisive, and most certainly holds a disdain for those whom do not agree with his politics or agenda. ( you know, those folks who are "bitterly clinging to their god and guns")
 
Risky Thicket said:
I have never disagreed with you more. Krauthammer is the reason the term "partisan hack" was coined. He is and forever will be bitter and spiteful.
Click to expand...

You can disagree. Not everyone likes him. I do. I find him to be very smart and thoughtful, even when i don't agree with him. In this article, he was spot on.
 

So Boehner should have said "Hey, this $815 billion stimulus bill that the other party presented is really neato, and we should just ignore the wishes of all of the people who voted us into our jobs and roll over, play dead, and pass it, because Obama is new on the job". Is that about right?
 

No nothing like that. They shouldn't have held a meeting before he even had a chance to start and decide to say no to everything he did. They themselves ruled out compromise, debate and discussion right then and there. Then they whine about how it's his fault.
 

Look at this graph again :



Notice how President Bush 2's starting approval rating wasn't that bad among democrats ? Me too. Notice how President Bush 2's approval rating among republicans fell during his presidency ? Me too.

Now look at President Obama. The democrats still love him as much as they did when he entered, and if you look at the republicans, only a handful approved of him out the gate and that steadily declined.

Compare that to President Nixon. President Nixon had plummeting approval ratings under republicans, look at that spike. By the end, his own party's approval rating fell to 50%.

President Nixon wasn't divisive so much as overall disliked. And President Obama is very likable, as well as reasonable. What you're really measuring is the republican perception and not the reality. And that republican perception is the most potent source of divisiveness in American politics.
 
tres borrachos said:
You can disagree. Not everyone likes him. I do. I find him to be very smart and thoughtful, even when i don't agree with him. In this article, he was spot on.
Click to expand...
Hi Tres -

For the most part I don't agree with him necessarily either, but I do highly respect his thought process and insight, enough so that I go out of my way to watch him when I can.

My understanding is he was a liberal, who then became conservative, and wrote a book on his conversion, which I once looked for but couldn't find. I'm dying to read it though.

I do agree with him once in a while, but too often I do find him highly partisan, to the point of his stretching the facts, but that's just my opinion.

But damn, he's got a great political mind! The Right is lucky to have him.
 

I've seen him brazenly lie far too often to take anything he says seriously.
 
Chomsky said:
A few months?


I'm at a loss to understand your theories.
Click to expand...

not theories. facts. Obama demonized his enemies from the word go(read the article).

I don't understand what you're missing. Obama pledged to bring us all together, which was BS along with the "hope and change" nonsense everyone bought.

so when it turns out that not only did he fail to bring anyone together, but made moves which DIRECTLY led to them being far apart, how can anyone take him seriously when he pleads for "rational discourse"?

The man himself has become an ironic symbol; an arrogant, stubborn, underhanded politician..........just like Nixon, god love him
 
joG said:
I think I have to agree with the article. But that was what was the danger of electing a man without experience and only populist visions as a plan.

What is so horrible is that we are on the verge of doing it again.
Click to expand...

Well I am not a real fan sell out for Charles Krauthammer. Sometimes he is point on but the guy is an establishment player and no one produced more hit pieces against other Republican candidates during the 2008 and 2012 election than Krauthammer. He was all in for the establishment like stink on ****. He used his poison pen to trash any candidate that became a threat to the one the establishment was rallying around.

Well Romney and McCain which he both supported turned out to be losers. If Krauthammer would have used his journalistic skills to force vetting of Obama in the media exposing what exactly Obama meant by Hope and Change instead of using his poison pen to go after any GOP candidate that posed a threat to his beloved establishment candidate then he would have creds today. It's a little late to be critiquing Obama. He had an opportunity to be a real investigative journalist and delve into who and what Obama really stood for before he was elected but was too busy protecting the establishment candidate of his liking.
 
KLATTU said:
I'll defend Obama on this one. He hasn't helped, but the GOP hasn't either .
And there are so many hyperpartisan media outlets now, that only fans flames.
Back in the day, the media was almost all liberal but they at least pretended they weren't.
Click to expand...

Hasn't helped?

Tell me, when did he ever invite GOP leaders to the White House for a working lunch? You see, I ask because that's what other presidents have done in times of crisis. FDR was not the first, Johnson did it, along with Nixon, Reagan and apparently both Bush's.

What did Obama do? He strutted into the White House and called all Republicans his "enemies" and then proved himself to be the most vengeful mother****er to ever inhabit the Oral Office. Obama set new presidents for the **** games he played with Republicans and cheered on his henchman Harry ****ing Reid who shelved EVERY BILL presented by the opposition and capped it off by basically committing slander against Romney in the only place he could not be sued.

We are talking about the lowest, dirtiest, most petty bull**** a president has ever done.

Leaders unite. Losers attack their opponents.....and that all that asshole did. There was no onus on the GOP to try to find some common ground and when they did got it shoved down their throats.

I said as much as seven years ago, pray to whatever god you know that the GOP doesn't get a sweep of the White House, Senate and Congress as the Deamoncrats who ****ed over their counterparts are in for some payback.
 

Oh Puh-lease. Obama spent the majority of his first two years in office bending over backwards to try to appease the "Party of NO", who made it clear that their only objective was to make sure he was a one-term President (which they failed at miserably). Most of the Democrats I know were extremely frustrated with Obama throughout his first term for not standing up to the GOP and for trying to compromise everything (Hell...its how we ended up with the horrible Heritage Foundation/Republican insurance mandate as part of the ACA). While it is true that Obama finally "got it" and realized that the Republican Party of NO was never going to work with him....the whole standing up to them is something that has really only happened in the last couple of year....no where never SEVEN YEARS.
 

Obama is a joke that even leftists would rather forget about.

This is "hope and change".
 
Erod said:
What Nixon did was minor compared to Hillary.

He was run out of office by the media. She's being ignored and protected.

Obama has had free PR service from the media for eight years.
Click to expand...

What Hillary did is minor compared to Obama.

He and Holder saw fit to ensure that firearms were smuggled across the Mexican border with the express intention of having those weapons end up in the hands of criminals. This was done so that when those weapons were used in the commission of a crime the liberals could run to the nearest CNN crew and say "See, this is why we need stricter gun control." Never mind that it is them that is ensuring the weapons got across the border in the first place. Sure enough, hundreds of Mexicans and a US Border Patrol Agent were killed by firearms that the Obama administration ensured the safe passage of. I mean what Hillary did is a felony, no doubt of that, but at least she wasn't "directly" involved in an operation that resulted in the death of foreign nationals.
 
JoeTrumps said:
Obama: Healthcare Bill. Hey republicans, come give me your ideas.
GOP: Here ya go.
Obama: I shall ignore your ideas, NOW go screw yourselves------BILL PASSES
Click to expand...

It's been six years. They still haven't offered an alternative.

Can we stop pretending at this point they were somehow frozen out because Obama is just so mean? It should be pretty clear by this point the fundamental barrier to them getting more involved was that they actually just don't have any different ideas.
 

Are you sure you are remembering this correctly?

In his first 2 years he had control of the house and senate.

Why would he need to bend over backwards for the GOP?
 
Yes, technically you can say he "promised to bring everyone together", and it didn't happen.

But you make it sound like this can be done unilaterally, and it can't.

By your logic a marriage where one partner wants it to work should always succeed, when we know a marriage can only succeed with two willing partners.

Your statements sound overly idealistic and naive, if you believe one man can bring many unwilling others to agreement.
 

You should read and watch sources other than left wing ones. You would know that Republicans have offered a number of alternatives to the disastrous ACA.
 
Gill said:
You should read and watch sources other than left wing ones. You would know that Republicans have offered a number of alternatives to the disastrous ACA.
Click to expand...

Not really, no. But this might finally be the year!

Ryan vows to offer ObamaCare replacement plan in 2016
Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) said Thursday he plans to roll out a long-awaited replacement plan for ObamaCare in 2016, lifting healthcare reform to the top of the House GOP’s agenda in a presidential election year.
Click to expand...

Once they finish that up, maybe they can time travel back 7 years and take part in the health reform debate.
 
Gill said:
You should read and watch sources other than left wing ones. You would know that Republicans have offered a number of alternatives to the disastrous ACA.
Click to expand...
Of course they haven't. And they can't. Any time a republican tries to come up with something they end up describing the ACA. That's because the ACA is a Republican plan.

It's like there's this strange alternate 1984 type universe where history is constantly being rewritten.

I think Obama's biggest "failure" is that he's too practical. There was nothing to give the GOP on the ACA because he included their best ideas from the get go because it was the right thing to do. And he rejected the Democrats single payer plans because it was the wrong thing to do.

Obama isn't perfect, but apply those standards to any other modern president. None of them stack up.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…