Posted on Sep 15, 2015
Why are so many people "Dissatisfied" with the Performance of President Obama?
74.7K
1.29K
674
36
22
14
I'm a HUGE Admirer of our President! I Personally Love the job he has done! Especially with what he had to tell with when he took over the Office! Many people seem to Disregard that fact! Why? I don't know! However, many of you seem Dissatisfied! Why? He hasn't done anything for this Country in terms of Moving it Forward? The Country hasn't Progressed under him? What are your Thoughts!
Posted in these groups: 
Legacy
Job Performance
Office of the President (POTUS)
Barack Obama
White House
Legacy Job Performance Office of the President (POTUS) Barack Obama White House
Posted 9 y ago
Responses: 147
1
1
0
Because there is little fair media coverage of him, it all makes obvious slants for or against him and the negative is typically easier to believe
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
SPC Griffin, my opinion is based on a pretty strict interpretation of the Constitution. Two points lead me to be dissatisfied with President Obama's performance.
First, President Obama's actions show that he wants to expand the role and scope of the federal government. This is contrary to the letter and spirit of the Constitution, specifically the 10th Amendment.
He has also made numerous remarks and actions that seek to circumvent the Constitutional limits on Executive power. This ties back to his Constitutional duty to "take care that the laws be faithfully executed" - I believe that this duty is the same as that of a soldier executing an order: executing the orders (laws) he disagrees with as energetically those he does agree with.
Some specific examples of actions that lead me to my opinion:
- Demurring on fulfilling the requirements of the War Powers Resolution with respect to military action in Libya
- Making recess appointments to the NLRB and Consumer Financial Protection Bureau when the Senate was not in recess
- Waiving statutory deadlines and terms of the Affordable Care Act without the authorization of Congress
- Unilaterally suspending execution of standing immigration law for entire classes of people
- Excusing himself for not complying with the law requiring him to notify Congress of his release of Guantanamo prisoners when exchanging the for PFC Bergdahl.
I accept that fact that many presidents (Republican, Democrat and Whig) before Obama also worked hard to expand the power of the federal government and the office of the President, but why should any of us accept that two wrongs make a right?
First, President Obama's actions show that he wants to expand the role and scope of the federal government. This is contrary to the letter and spirit of the Constitution, specifically the 10th Amendment.
He has also made numerous remarks and actions that seek to circumvent the Constitutional limits on Executive power. This ties back to his Constitutional duty to "take care that the laws be faithfully executed" - I believe that this duty is the same as that of a soldier executing an order: executing the orders (laws) he disagrees with as energetically those he does agree with.
Some specific examples of actions that lead me to my opinion:
- Demurring on fulfilling the requirements of the War Powers Resolution with respect to military action in Libya
- Making recess appointments to the NLRB and Consumer Financial Protection Bureau when the Senate was not in recess
- Waiving statutory deadlines and terms of the Affordable Care Act without the authorization of Congress
- Unilaterally suspending execution of standing immigration law for entire classes of people
- Excusing himself for not complying with the law requiring him to notify Congress of his release of Guantanamo prisoners when exchanging the for PFC Bergdahl.
I accept that fact that many presidents (Republican, Democrat and Whig) before Obama also worked hard to expand the power of the federal government and the office of the President, but why should any of us accept that two wrongs make a right?
(1)
(0)
Capt Walter Miller
If President Obama has or wants to expand the power of the presidency it is because the GOP has abandoned any idea of working for the good of the country.
Clearly, the Tea Party wing of the GOP, to which Boehner and McConnell pander, wants to destroy the federal government entirely. In this they are trying to be a bit more canny than their forebears during the secession crisis of 1860-61, which didn't exactly go their way.
Bleating about the 10th Amendment has "Tea Party" written all over it.
Walt
Clearly, the Tea Party wing of the GOP, to which Boehner and McConnell pander, wants to destroy the federal government entirely. In this they are trying to be a bit more canny than their forebears during the secession crisis of 1860-61, which didn't exactly go their way.
Bleating about the 10th Amendment has "Tea Party" written all over it.
Walt
(0)
(0)
COL Dan Fuhr
Capt. Miller,
I want to make sure I understand what your are saying. Correct me if I misunderstand your points:
- The Republicans have evil intent for the country. Therefore, President Obama has only one option available to him to prevent harm to the nation, which is to take liberties with his Constitutional authority. If his opposition wasn't so intransigent, if they would just go along with his agenda, he wouldn't have to expand the Constitutional limits on his power.
- A reasonable person can ONLY conclude that the Republicans want to eliminate the Federal government. You claim that Republicans attempted to destroy the Federal government during the Civil War, but this did not end well for them.
(You're going to have to explain this, as the history I learned tells me that it was a Republican administration that greatly expanded the role of the federal government during the Civil War. Lincoln's administration fought a rebellion led almost entirely by Democrats who violently opposed an expansive, strong federal government - it did not go as well for the latter as it did former as I recall.)
- My reference to the Constitution as a basis for my conclusions represents a complaint in a weak, querulous, or foolish way. Furthermore, this reference suggests that I am a Tea Party supporter [I have no connection whatsoever to the Tea Party, by the way]: the inference being that ANY comments made by someone associated with the Tea Party are intrinsically wrong, cannot have merit and therefore must be summarily rejected. (I recommend you research the logical fallacy known as the "Genetic Fallacy".)
One last thing, below is the 10th Amendment for your reference. Please let me know what you think it means with respect to expanding the scope of the federal government - or perhaps this part of the Constitution is just passe.
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."
Regards,
Dan Fuhr
I want to make sure I understand what your are saying. Correct me if I misunderstand your points:
- The Republicans have evil intent for the country. Therefore, President Obama has only one option available to him to prevent harm to the nation, which is to take liberties with his Constitutional authority. If his opposition wasn't so intransigent, if they would just go along with his agenda, he wouldn't have to expand the Constitutional limits on his power.
- A reasonable person can ONLY conclude that the Republicans want to eliminate the Federal government. You claim that Republicans attempted to destroy the Federal government during the Civil War, but this did not end well for them.
(You're going to have to explain this, as the history I learned tells me that it was a Republican administration that greatly expanded the role of the federal government during the Civil War. Lincoln's administration fought a rebellion led almost entirely by Democrats who violently opposed an expansive, strong federal government - it did not go as well for the latter as it did former as I recall.)
- My reference to the Constitution as a basis for my conclusions represents a complaint in a weak, querulous, or foolish way. Furthermore, this reference suggests that I am a Tea Party supporter [I have no connection whatsoever to the Tea Party, by the way]: the inference being that ANY comments made by someone associated with the Tea Party are intrinsically wrong, cannot have merit and therefore must be summarily rejected. (I recommend you research the logical fallacy known as the "Genetic Fallacy".)
One last thing, below is the 10th Amendment for your reference. Please let me know what you think it means with respect to expanding the scope of the federal government - or perhaps this part of the Constitution is just passe.
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."
Regards,
Dan Fuhr
(0)
(0)
1
1
0
The president met with a prominent figure from Wall Street today.
Okay, I think is probably related to "talk Like a Pirate Day".
ARGH!
Okay, I think is probably related to "talk Like a Pirate Day".
ARGH!
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
My Commander In Chief deserves all the respect he gets. I know that in that position, he is privy to information that would absolutely flabbergast most of us. It would change the way we look at our whole existence. To know what he knows and to have his calm composure, demeanor, and even a little 'swag' in the face of all his detractors, hecklers, and naysayers is amazing to me. I salute him.
(1)
(0)
COL Jean (John) F. B.
SGT (Join to see) - He also deserves all the disrespect he gets. You reap what you sow.
(0)
(0)
1
1
0
I'm not dissatisfied neither disappointed at all because I never expected much from him. In 2008 I voted really not for him but AGAINST senile old McCain and his choice for VP, the little loony, Pseudo-pentecost lady from Alaska... err... what's her name? Don't want to remember so please don't even mention it!
He is a man of low moral values, not an example to be followed by blacks or any other Family man. He's become and made himself an accomplice of Deviants and Perverts. Not a true Christian but an Apostate and a Heretic who like in the words of the Apostle Paul, listens to, spirits of Error and Doctrines of Demons.
Thanks God almighty he's out in 14 months and maybe just maybe somebody a milligram better may be POTUS. The Obama care thing has not affected me much, except maybe for the increase in Premiums, that's 'cause I had good Insurance for decades before that.
He is a man of low moral values, not an example to be followed by blacks or any other Family man. He's become and made himself an accomplice of Deviants and Perverts. Not a true Christian but an Apostate and a Heretic who like in the words of the Apostle Paul, listens to, spirits of Error and Doctrines of Demons.
Thanks God almighty he's out in 14 months and maybe just maybe somebody a milligram better may be POTUS. The Obama care thing has not affected me much, except maybe for the increase in Premiums, that's 'cause I had good Insurance for decades before that.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
Do you really need to ask this question? Seriously he's not, nor never would be my CinC
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
I think every President deals with disrespect, treachery, betrayal and sabotage. Do some have to deal with more than others? I'm sure they do but to say one has had it more than others I think is an error in statement. For example, if you look back in history, President Lincoln, one of the few Presidents in our history that more approve of now than disapprove had to face a lot of treachery, betrayal and sabotage. He also did a lot of things or at least had knowledge of things that were less than Presidential to get things done. When he was working on getting the 13th Amendment passed, he did everything within his power to see it pass. Bribing politicians was common play back there. Some looked at Lincoln as an American version of Caesar ruling by fear. Yet, in the end, the bill was passed and the Bill of Rights forever changed.
Do I agree with everyone Obama did? No I do not. Nor do I agree with everything Bush did. Politics is much like war, you may not always have to agree with it but it is sometimes to only means to an end.
Do I agree with everyone Obama did? No I do not. Nor do I agree with everything Bush did. Politics is much like war, you may not always have to agree with it but it is sometimes to only means to an end.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
Because they are racist! In spite of the stock market over the past month or so we are much better off then when he took office!
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
He has done nothing good for the military. Traded burgdal, how ever you spell it, Benghazi, Iraq power vacuum / Isis, force reduction, larger national debt the list can go on and on.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
I guess I need a disclaimer. I get so many nut job comments on my posts that I can't possibly get to them all, plus I find this site awkward to use.
Walt
Walt
(1)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google