• 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!

Why Are Dems So Sycophantic Towards Obama?

Just curious. I mean he is not popular. His signature policy "achievement"is quite unpopular. Yet Dems in congress,even from red states,vote lockstep for anything he wants. Likewise on this forum. The level of fealty to him on here by some borders on that shown towards a monarch,not an elected leader.

It's not any different with Republicans. You hear conservatives all the time complaining about spending, yet they voted for Bush twice. When asked why they did it, they say "Well the alternative was worse". That's how the Dems work as well and why the duopoly of Dem/Rep is not only broken, but is ruining this country. People are polled all the time and congress has single digit approval ratings because people think "THEIR" guy isn't the problem.
 
Obamaphobia made you ask the stupid question in the OP.

The answer is Democrats aren't, but in teapartybizarroworld, normal behavior toward a successful president is sycophancy (though I bet most tea partiers had to look the word up)

I shudder to think what a failed liberal Presidency would look like!
 
It's not any different with Republicans. You hear conservatives all the time complaining about spending, yet they voted for Bush twice. When asked why they did it, they say "Well the alternative was worse". That's how the Dems work as well and why the duopoly of Dem/Rep is not only broken, but is ruining this country. People are polled all the time and congress has single digit approval ratings because people think "THEIR" guy isn't the problem.

Voting for O twice is one thing; covering for him on his daily blunders is something else. Conservatives did not do that for Bush.
 
Anyone who would say that has never been to a meeting of leftists. The left is comprised of very diverse people with a wide variety of interests, priorities and preferred tactics. I suspect most leftists would agree that we would be more effective if we could achieve more unity.

I've been to meetings of leftists, both in person and on-line, and I've observed lemmings.
 
Voting for O twice is one thing; covering for him on his daily blunders is something else. Conservatives did not do that for Bush.

Sure they did with anything happening in the IRaq war the right supported and defended him on. The only thing they did was give lip service to hating the spending when they voted for him twice still.
 
Obamaphobia made you ask the stupid question in the OP.

The answer is Democrats aren't, but in teapartybizarroworld, normal behavior toward a successful president is sycophancy (though I bet most tea partiers had to look the word up)
His approval rating and whether he's successful or not are two different things. Democracy is a popularity contest, not a meritocracy. The president has created massive amounts of debt, in ways that nobody can still blame on Bush. I'd understand 1-2 years of Bush overflow, but we're halfway through year 5; Obama needs to take responsibility of his problem and he needs to fix it.
I love when Obama lovers claim that the US is more respected now. That often means that the current leader is less likely to push the Pro-American agenda than the last guy. Liberals think our president should kowtow to foreign interests than Conservatives usually do. Obama is an appeaser
This might be true, but there's nothing particularly wrong with that. When it comes to foreign relations, Obama seems to be doing better than average.

I'm not rabidly against Obama, but I don't blindly support him either; I acknowledge when he's done good, the good parts of his bad ideas, and when he's just doing wrong. When it comes to Obamacare, the right have been telling, let's call them fibs (since outrageous lies isn't PC). Death-Panels, tracking chips, using it as a scapegoat for layoffs, etc. We need a real economic study of it's effects, not ghost stories or exploitation. I personally know people that only have healthcare because of this law, one of which would have died without a pacemaker. Although I think the entire plan is a bust, it's helping plenty of people; there are people who like Obamacare, don't fool yourself.

Personally, I think we need real Socialized medicine, like Canada. Obamacare is not socialized medicine, mind you, it's just forced health insurance. Canada and European countries that have used single-payer healthcare have found it to be preferable; it increases life expectancy, decreases overall costs (Canada pays about half the amount we pay privately per capita for healthcare), and has social effects of promoting a more stress free environment. It's not just a social/moral good, it's good economics.
 
There's lemmings on both sides.

No doubt, but liberals have proven themselves really good at toeing the party line. It's not just that they are Obamabots for O, they covered for Clinton exactly the same way.
 
Back
Top Bottom