Obama's Approval Rating at 45%

Off Topic Politics and World Issues
21

[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
But there’s also this way to think about it: 45% (approximately) of voters – or perhaps likely voters – approves of acts such as blowing out the budget as astoundingly and horrifically as he has, and so forth.

Isn’t that something to be concerned about?[/quote]

Not really, since he hasn’t blown out the budget. Obama’s spending has only contributed to a fifth of the deficit for this fiscal year. Over 40% was financial rescues begun by Bush, and most of the rest was diminished tax revenues.

This is why right-wingers can never understand left-wing positions: they get the facts wrong, and so all of their subsequent analysis is wrong.

22

And the pity party continues. Why can’t the right grasp the fact that the woman is a goddamn idiot, and that’s why people don’t think she’s qualified to be president? The press “gang raped” her? She couldn’t handle Katie Couric. She couldn’t name ONE PERIODICAL she read. Just say something. Name ONE NEWSPAPER. It doesn’t have to be one you read, no one will know. She couldn’t do it. No gang rape necessary, she hangs herself the minute she opens her mouth.

I guess the right has finally given up their last thin ties with reality.

23

[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
ZEB wrote:Yes, I remember all the buzz about palin when they first announced her as the the vp choice. But that was BEFORE the press gang raped her and made a laughing stock of her candidacy. Forget Palin, just forget her, she can only lose.

And the pity party continues. Why can’t the right grasp the fact that the woman is a goddamn idiot, and that’s why people don’t think she’s qualified to be president? [/quote]

According to your beloved press Eisenhower, Reagan, Quyale, Bush and most of the republicans who either ran for or were elected President were idiots. Surely even you can see a pattern here. The press is liberal (80% admits usually voting for the democrat). There is no more journalistic integrity. That fact bothers you I see.

Here is another fact: Palin at that time was more qualified to be President than Obama. yet, how many times did you hear from the mainstream liberal media, that Obama lacked the proper qualifications to be President, or does sitting for two years in the Senate (he then launched his campaign for the Presidency) make one the most qualified?

Study political history a bit and get back to me.

24

[quote]ZEB wrote:
Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
ZEB wrote:Yes, I remember all the buzz about palin when they first announced her as the the vp choice. But that was BEFORE the press gang raped her and made a laughing stock of her candidacy. Forget Palin, just forget her, she can only lose.

And the pity party continues. Why can’t the right grasp the fact that the woman is a goddamn idiot, and that’s why people don’t think she’s qualified to be president?

According to your beloved press Eisenhower, Reagan, Quyale, Bush and most of the republicans who either ran for or were elected President were idiots. Surely even you can see a pattern here. The press is liberal (80% admits usually voting for the democrat). There is no more journalistic integrity. That fact bothers you I see.

Here is another fact: Palin at that time was more qualified to be President than Obama. yet, how many times did you hear from the mainstream liberal media, that Obama lacked the proper qualifications to be President, or does sitting for two years in the Senate (he then launched his campaign for the Presidency) make one the most qualified?

Study political history a bit and get back to me.

[/quote]

That 80% figure is low. The lowest I have seen it over 30 years is 85% and the highest 95%.

Funny thing, I’m a science major we always thought journalism majors and education majors were idiots. I mean it’s not like they take much science or math in their majors.

And they vote primarily democratic, usually over 90%.

25

[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
ZEB wrote:Yes, I remember all the buzz about palin when they first announced her as the the vp choice. But that was BEFORE the press gang raped her and made a laughing stock of her candidacy. Forget Palin, just forget her, she can only lose.

And the pity party continues. Why can’t the right grasp the fact that the woman is a goddamn idiot, and that’s why people don’t think she’s qualified to be president? The press “gang raped” her? She couldn’t handle Katie Couric. She couldn’t name ONE PERIODICAL she read. Just say something. Name ONE NEWSPAPER. It doesn’t have to be one you read, no one will know. She couldn’t do it. No gang rape necessary, she hangs herself the minute she opens her mouth.

I guess the right has finally given up their last thin ties with reality.

[/quote]

Kind of like you living off the parent’s money and expressing an opinion like you actually know something? Socialism and college kids have one thing in common to paraphrase Maggie Thatcher, it’s a great idea until you run out of someone else’s money.

26

Kind of funny that when I used to post up W’s perenially low poll numbers, I was told that polls don’t matter and are biased.

So… uh, yea, fuck you guys. It’s biased and doesn’t matter.

27

[quote]hedo wrote:
Take out the polling bias and he is already in the 30’s. He is falling like a rock and only the true idealists still support him. Some of the elections earlier this month were sweeps where Democrats lost every office up for grabs. 2010 will be a tidal wave getting rid of these guys. 2012 will be a landslide against Obama vs. just about anyone. I can’t imagine what kind of mischief he and the other Acorn nuts will try to stay in power.[/quote]

I’m surprised at you. Normally you’re more sane than this post shows.

28

What bothers me is that you have so little regard for honesty that you will not admit that Sarah Palin, who is clearly one of the stupidest people who has ever gotten this much media exposure, is in fact stupid. Instead, you have to resort to these fantasy stories about media whack-jobs when the fact is she could not answer simple questions asked of her by Katie Couric. Obfuscate all you want, this fact remains, and you can’t stand it. Vote for her if you want, I don’t care, but don’t pretend she’s not a moron.

There is no objective set of qualifications for president. This is just republican whining. She can barely even form her own sentences. I’d say that would be near the top of the list.

Take your tinfoil hat off and look outside a little and get back to me.

[/quote]

29

It doesn’t matter. This is a logical fallacy that you keep making, attacking information based on its source. It doesn’t matter if 100% are members of the Communist Party. Is the information correct? Yes, it generally is. The reality is, it just irritates you to hear it.

[quote]Funny thing, I’m a science major we always thought journalism majors and education majors were idiots. I mean it’s not like they take much science or math in their majors.

And they vote primarily democratic, usually over 90%.[/quote]

I’m a science major too. I fail to see your point.

30

[quote]tom63 wrote: Kind of like you living off the parent’s money and expressing an opinion like you actually know something? Socialism and college kids have one thing in common to paraphrase Maggie Thatcher, it’s a great idea until you run out of someone else’s money.
[/quote]

I accept your surrender.

31

[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
ZEB wrote:According to your beloved press Eisenhower, Reagan, Quyale, Bush and most of the republicans who either ran for or were elected President were idiots. Surely even you can see a pattern here. The press is liberal (80% admits usually voting for the democrat). There is no more journalistic integrity. That fact bothers you I see.

What bothers me is that you have so little regard for honesty that you will not admit that Sarah Palin, who is clearly one of the stupidest people who has ever gotten this much media exposure, is in fact stupid. Instead, you have to resort to these fantasy stories about media whack-jobs when the fact is she could not answer simple questions asked of her by Katie Couric. Obfuscate all you want, this fact remains, and you can’t stand it. Vote for her if you want, I don’t care, but don’t pretend she’s not a moron.

Here is another fact: Palin at that time was more qualified to be President than Obama. yet, how many times did you hear from the mainstream liberal media, that Obama lacked the proper qualifications to be President, or does sitting for two years in the Senate (he then launched his campaign for the Presidency) make one the most qualified?

There is no objective set of qualifications for president. This is just republican whining. She can barely even form her own sentences. I’d say that would be near the top of the list.

Study political history a bit and get back to me.

Take your tinfoil hat off and look outside a little and get back to me.

[/quote]

Firstly, concede the point that about 80% of the mainstream media are registered democrats, or independents. If you can do that the debate is pretty much over isn’t it? Unless of course you then try to tell me that just because they are leaning left doesn’t mean that they are biased, (chuckle) are you going to say that?

Secondly, Obama being just left of Hillary was enough for the press to turn on the former first lady. Ask Hillary Clinton how biased the press was against her in her debates with Obama. It was so obvious that SNL made a series of very funny sketches out of it.

Really, there can be no more discussion if you are not ready to admit the above two facts. If you cannot you are simply blind by partisanship, stupid, or just so young that you have not yet awoken from your liberal stupor.

Which is it?

32

[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
tom63 wrote:That 80% figure is low. The lowest I have seen it over 30 years is 85% and the highest 95%.

It doesn’t matter. This is a logical fallacy that you keep making, attacking information based on its source. It doesn’t matter if 100% are members of the Communist Party. Is the information correct? Yes, it generally is. The reality is, it just irritates you to hear it.

[/quote]

We’re essentially saying that what they are reporting is NOT correct. Furthermore, we are maintaining that it is biased BECAUSE there are so many liberals in the the mainstream media.

Get it yet?

Therefore, the irritation is felt because there is such obvious bias. However, that is now balanced with the entertainment that I’m getting watching someone so young, partisan and liberal make such foolish arguments.

Thank you,

Zeb

33

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
Kind of funny that when I used to post up W’s perenially low poll numbers, I was told that polls don’t matter and are biased.

So… uh, yea, fuck you guys. It’s biased and doesn’t matter.[/quote]

The polls taken on W were indeed accurate. But how they got that way is another point for debate. The media is famous for totally destroying a politicians image and then taking polls asking questions regarding that politician. They then report (to no ones surprise) that the politician in question is not very well liked. This leads even more people to dislike that particular politician and you have the ultimate spiral downward. A self-fulfilling prophecy of sorts.

Notice that while Obama’s poll numbers have dropped like a heavy stone in a deep pond the mainstream press is not making a big deal of it. If they gave him the GW treatment Obama would be looking at 40% approval ratings by February, but then again he’s doing such a lousy job he might be looking at those numbers anyway.

Media bias is real and has been proven time and again. Even the many star reporters don’t deny it at this point. Ask Chris Matthews if his leg feels tingly when you mention Palin’s name, or is it just Obama’s that gives him that oh so tingly feeling up and down his leg. He might just be the biggest disgrace among the many, but he has his rivals.

Media bias is obvious and prevalent any attempt to deny it is simply foolish.

34

[quote]hedo wrote:
Take out the polling bias and he is already in the 30’s. He is falling like a rock and only the true idealists still support him. Some of the elections earlier this month were sweeps where Democrats lost every office up for grabs. 2010 will be a tidal wave getting rid of these guys. 2012 will be a landslide against Obama vs. just about anyone. I can’t imagine what kind of mischief he and the other Acorn nuts will try to stay in power.[/quote]

While I generally support the GOP, they need to stick to the values that defined them prior to Clinton taking office…namely rule of law, low taxes, anti-illegal immigration, pro BUSINESS.

Yes PRO business. Despite what the tree hugging, neoliberal, ball suckers think…business is the engine that builds prospertiy for everyone.

35

[quote]ZEB wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:
Kind of funny that when I used to post up W’s perenially low poll numbers, I was told that polls don’t matter and are biased.

So… uh, yea, fuck you guys. It’s biased and doesn’t matter.

The polls taken on W were indeed accurate. But how they got that way is another point for debate. The media is famous for totally destroying a politicians image and then taking polls asking questions regarding that politician. They then report (to no ones surprise) that the politician in question is not very well liked. This leads even more people to dislike that particular politician and you have the ultimate spiral downward. A self-fulfilling prophecy of sorts.

Notice that while Obama’s poll numbers have dropped like a heavy stone in a deep pond the mainstream press is not making a big deal of it. If they gave him the GW treatment Obama would be looking at 40% approval ratings by February, but then again he’s doing such a lousy job he might be looking at those numbers anyway.

Media bias is real and has been proven time and again. Even the many star reporters don’t deny it at this point. Ask Chris Matthews if his leg feels tingly when you mention Palin’s name, or is it just Obama’s that gives him that oh so tingly feeling up and down his leg. He might just be the biggest disgrace among the many, but he has his rivals.

Media bias is obvious and prevalent any attempt to deny it is simply foolish.
[/quote]

I wish I could give you a pat on the back for that post.

36

um, isn’t it still 2009? doesnt that mean he has a full 3 years to incite some nation to attack america and save his presidency?

on a different note, how the fuck can any of us idiots who donn’t have to deal with insane fuckers like kim jung il, or people like hu jintao, or putin, really have an opinion at all. anyone who thinks a president should be rated by popular support is a freakin idiot, or didnt learn anything in their study of politics. we vote in a president based on a completely manipulated image that tickles our fancy. he then gets to rule for 4-8 years, and our democracy guarentees he willl then be removed.

there is not meaningful way to measure the impact of any political leader, especially if you are a subject. because you can blaim everything on the leader. McDonalds raises prices, due to obama. car sales lag, due to Obama. actually, its a lot more complex than that.

whatever

37

Yes, there is no way to pin on a President trillions of dollars of added spending above and beyond previously-planned huge spending for those years, with resulting trillions of dollars of yet-further-increased deficits, just because his Administration called for it.

38

[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
Yes, there is no way to pin on a President trillions of dollars of added spending above and beyond previously-planned huge spending for those years, with resulting trillions of dollars of yet-further-increased deficits, just because his Administration called for it.[/quote]

That only works if it was the Bush administration.

39

Yet at the time, while complaining about the aspect of “the rich” paying less taxes, which they transform into “giving money to the rich,” the Democrats and the media hammered Bush on alleged “cuts” (cuts relative to previous plans, but vast increases over anything ever spent before.)

Now however, since he can’t run for election again and therefore tagging him with making evil cuts has no political value, the same parties consider him an irresponsible spender. But Obama, not so much.

40

Not throwing my hat in the ring either way, but…
I think that many people forget that their are many different levels, lines and types of intelligence. Jimmy Carter was possibly the most intelligent president of the last fifty years, yet he generally thought of as a poor president from both sides of the isle. Reagan was no Rhodes scholar, but love him or hate him, he was very effective. Book sense, people sense, street smart, people smart, they each serve best in certain situations.

I think the appeal of Palin, for those who like her, is that there is a congruency to her unlike most any other politician. You get the feeling that she is not analyzing her speech for the perfect balance of vagueness. She tends to come off as more authentic than others in her profession. It will most likely be a major contributor to her ultimate dismissal, but for the time being it makes her unique.

If intelligence, experience and a proven real world track record were truly the secret to success in the American political system, Mitt Romney would probably be our sitting president. Even then, I am not sure how different our current situation would be. I still believe that people completely overestimate the power of the presidency, at least in things economic.