70365
Post by: Gentleman_Jellyfish
"It wasn't his fault, it was all Congress"
221
Post by: Frazzled
Thanks! I was actually trying to do the Presidential comparison graph but glitched it. Thanks Obama!
Strangely I've been more supportive of his foreign policy recently.
53375
Post by: hotsauceman1
Does this mean the 61% of the country is racist
20243
Post by: Grey Templar
If certain people are to be believed, yes. 
221
Post by: Frazzled
I know I am. The only good cat is a dead cat. The only thing a squirrel is good for is stew.
At least thats what the dogs tell me.
241
Post by: Ahtman
There are a lot of reasons why people why both sides of the aisles could be unhappy with how Pres. Obama based on the handling/mishandling of policy and foreign affairs. This thread, of course, has none of those good reasons and seem to be mostly just foolish partisan reasons and cheap point scoring. Next comes the feigned outrage and disbelief.
221
Post by: Frazzled
 Ahtman wrote:There are a lot of reasons why people why both sides of the aisles could be unhappy with how Pres. Obama based on the handling/mishandling of policy and foreign affairs. This thread, of course, has none of those good reasons and seem to be mostly just foolish partisan reasons and cheap point scoring. Next comes the feigned outrage and disbelief.
Wo there I am outraged! I just can't believe it!
I didn't cite reasons as I just saw the number and went...wo.
Of course this is about late 2006ish on the timeline so the econopmy hadn't dropped yet in the Bush Presidency.
Want to see some thing need. Pull up the graph comparing presidents and click anyone before Tricky DIck er Nixon, and now. Typically there's a 10 - 20 point difference regardless of party.
19370
Post by: daedalus
My word!
44290
Post by: LoneLictor
As a filthy hippy pinko, I also disapprove of him, because -
- he continued holding "terrorists" in indefinite detention without trials
- he tortured said "terrorists"
- instead of dismantling Bush's surveillance programs, he expanded them
- his failure to make any efforts to seriously regulate or punish the banks that had a part in the 2007-08 financial crisis
- his hamfisted use of drones that has resulted in large numbers of confirmed civil deaths in the middle east, including 12 civilians at a wedding
Now, you might say, "There was no way he could've stopped those things from happening". In that case he shouldn't have run for office on the promise that he could. The best case scenario is that he was overly optimistic and under qualified. The worst case scenario is that he gladly and willingly lied to secure office.
There are some things that Congress can actually be blamed for. His failure to strengthen gun control, cut back on social security, increase taxes on the wealthy, and so-on were the result of Congress. But the things I listed above - he can't blame Congress for drone strikes and Gitmo.
53375
Post by: hotsauceman1
He isn't the president we need, but the one we deserve
51881
Post by: BlaxicanX
This may or may not be a joke, but, this.
Obama's the type of President 'Murica deserves- he seems to be a genuinely good person doing the best that he can- but he's not suited for the current political/geopolitical climate.
34390
Post by: whembly
*meh*
It's probably more of a byproduct of "Obama-Fatigue®".
However, lemme just say... Romney was right!
38860
Post by: MrDwhitey
Man, what an improvement from before! 
5470
Post by: sebster
 Frazzled wrote:Of course this is about late 2006ish on the timeline so the econopmy hadn't dropped yet in the Bush Presidency.
That's the point - at this point in his presidency we were yet to see Bush's numbers go massively south. And Bush's numbers weren't that closely tied to the GFC - they actually dropped south of 30% before then, Katrina played a part but I think most of it was more to do with the changing narrative on Iraq - with Bush's second term won the conservative press wasn't willing to keep claiming the same nonsense about Iraq and just quietly moved on, leaving Bush to hold the can.
34390
Post by: whembly
 sebster wrote: Frazzled wrote:Of course this is about late 2006ish on the timeline so the econopmy hadn't dropped yet in the Bush Presidency.
That's the point - at this point in his presidency we were yet to see Bush's numbers go massively south. And Bush's numbers weren't that closely tied to the GFC - they actually dropped south of 30% before then, Katrina played a part but I think most of it was more to do with the changing narrative on Iraq - with Bush's second term won the conservative press wasn't willing to keep claiming the same nonsense about Iraq and just quietly moved on, leaving Bush to hold the can.
"Conservative Press???"
o.O
47598
Post by: motyak
 whembly wrote: sebster wrote: Frazzled wrote:Of course this is about late 2006ish on the timeline so the econopmy hadn't dropped yet in the Bush Presidency.
That's the point - at this point in his presidency we were yet to see Bush's numbers go massively south. And Bush's numbers weren't that closely tied to the GFC - they actually dropped south of 30% before then, Katrina played a part but I think most of it was more to do with the changing narrative on Iraq - with Bush's second term won the conservative press wasn't willing to keep claiming the same nonsense about Iraq and just quietly moved on, leaving Bush to hold the can.
"Conservative Press???"
o.O
I assume he means Fox and co, the conservative news organisations that are, well, conservative press. I fail to see how that is a shocking/surprising term.
80451
Post by: Sienisoturi
I'm not very good at american politics, so I hope fellow dakkanauts can enlighten me on the subject on why does everyone seem to dislike G.W. Bush?
57811
Post by: Jehan-reznor
 Sienisoturi wrote:I'm not very good at american politics, so I hope fellow dakkanauts can enlighten me on the subject on why does everyone seem to dislike G.W. Bush?
Maybe because Ronald Reagan was smarter than Bush? Maybe because of the whole Iraq debacle? Starting a war to get to the WMD's and we still can't find them, oh and stupid?
1464
Post by: Breotan
 motyak wrote: whembly wrote: sebster wrote: Frazzled wrote:Of course this is about late 2006ish on the timeline so the econopmy hadn't dropped yet in the Bush Presidency.
That's the point - at this point in his presidency we were yet to see Bush's numbers go massively south. And Bush's numbers weren't that closely tied to the GFC - they actually dropped south of 30% before then, Katrina played a part but I think most of it was more to do with the changing narrative on Iraq - with Bush's second term won the conservative press wasn't willing to keep claiming the same nonsense about Iraq and just quietly moved on, leaving Bush to hold the can.
"Conservative Press???"
o.O
I assume he means Fox and co, the conservative news organisations that are, well, conservative press. I fail to see how that is a shocking/surprising term.
Well, that's just one "press" outlet out of five in the USA alone. Don't see how FOX stopping coverage would have caused the rest to have "quietly moved on".
299
Post by: Kilkrazy
This surely raises a significant chance that Obama will not win a third term.
5470
Post by: sebster
Parts of the press are conservative. That is, they present a viewpoint that is on the conservative side of the scale. These agencies continued to maintain the arguments for Iraq long after said arguments were very silly, but finally gave up on that effort in 2005 & 2006, as there was simply no point in maintaining the effort any more - Bush had his second term, so there's nothing to gain, so the Iraq debacle was positioned as belonging to Bush alone, and everyone with future political ambitions distanced themselves from the issue.
It's no different with Obama. A lot of criticism of Obama that would have been countered by left wing media sources before the election is now just let through, and in some cases there's actually efforts on the left to frame certain unpopular policies as Obama's alone. Automatically Appended Next Post:  Breotan wrote:I assume he means Fox and co, the conservative news organisations that are, well, conservative press. I fail to see how that is a shocking/surprising term.
Well, that's just one "press" outlet out of five in the USA alone. Don't see how FOX stopping coverage would have caused the rest to have "quietly moved on".
There was no comment made about the actions of the rest of the media, my comment was entirely about the actions taken by the conservative media. Please read more carefully in future.
65199
Post by: OgreChubbs
I think this just proves my point you can keep people happy most of the time and Americans none of the time.
35006
Post by: Medium of Death
Surely now's the time that he reveals himself as the anti-christ and heralds in the end of the world.
So who is the rumoured replacement candidate?
10312
Post by: LuciusAR
Sienisoturi wrote:I'm not very good at american politics, so I hope fellow dakkanauts can enlighten me on the subject on why does everyone seem to dislike G.W. Bush?
Same reason everyone in the UK seems to dislike Tony Blair. Iraq.
Starting a decade long unwinnable war based on finding 'weapons' that never actually existed, costing us the lives of of brave servicemen and billions of pounds/dollars is not going to win anyone a positive write up in the history books.
It would actually be interesting to have a glimpse into a parallel universe where the Iraq invasion had never gone ahead to see how these men would have been judged in those circumstances. Far more favorably in general I imagine.
1206
Post by: Easy E
Where is the obligatory "Obama is truly histories greatest monster" comment?
10312
Post by: LuciusAR
 Easy E wrote:Where is the obligatory "Obama is truly histories greatest monster" comment?
That's another thing I've noticed. There is allot of Hyperbole regarding both presidents Bush and Obama. I've never seem so much hatred directed towards two presidents before and I can personally thing of far worse post war Presidents (both Republican and Democrat) than either of them. I don't mean legitimate criticism of their polices, I mean ludicrous hyperbole and hatred.
I'm wondering if its something to do with the prevalence of the Internet during the terms of these two Presidents? I can't imagine anything like the 'birther' conspiracies gaining any kind of traction in the pre internet days.
80999
Post by: jasper76
 LuciusAR wrote: Easy E wrote:Where is the obligatory "Obama is truly histories greatest monster" comment?
That's another thing I've noticed. There is allot of Hyperbole regarding both presidents Bush and Obama. I've never seem so much hatred directed towards two presidents before and I can personally thing of far worse post war Presidents (both Republican and Democrat) than either of them. I don't mean legitimate criticism of their polices, I mean ludicrous hyperbole and hatred.
I'm wondering if its something to do with the prevalence of the Internet during the terms of these two Presidents? I can't imagine anything like the 'birther' conspiracies gaining any kind of traction in the pre internet days.
With Bush I think its because, lets face it, he wasnt the sharpest knife in the cupboard, and many people suspect he just let Halliburton (Cheney) run the country, up to and including who we decided to make war against, and for what actual reasons. Helping a company out is one thing. Manufacturing intelligence to start wars for the benifit of corporations is something entirely different.
With Obama, I know I'll get flame for this, but I think alot of the hatred (not dissaproval, but hatred) is just plain racism. Older white voters, as well as voters in more racist areas of the country (like where I live), feel entitled that only their kind should run the country. Write this off all you want, but if you live here, you know its true.
20243
Post by: Grey Templar
Please, racism being the reason to dislike Obama is so far down the list of why he is disliked by the majority of people.
Its just a convenient scapegoat from the left to say its just racism.
80999
Post by: jasper76
 Grey Templar wrote:Please, racism being the reason to dislike Obama is so far down the list of why he is disliked by the majority of people.
Its just a convenient scapegoat from the left to say its just racism.
I didn't say it was a reason that people disliked Obama. I said it was a reason people hated Obama.
34390
Post by: whembly
 jasper76 wrote: LuciusAR wrote: Easy E wrote:Where is the obligatory "Obama is truly histories greatest monster" comment?
That's another thing I've noticed. There is allot of Hyperbole regarding both presidents Bush and Obama. I've never seem so much hatred directed towards two presidents before and I can personally thing of far worse post war Presidents (both Republican and Democrat) than either of them. I don't mean legitimate criticism of their polices, I mean ludicrous hyperbole and hatred. I'm wondering if its something to do with the prevalence of the Internet during the terms of these two Presidents? I can't imagine anything like the 'birther' conspiracies gaining any kind of traction in the pre internet days.
With Bush I think its because, lets face it, he wasnt the sharpest knife in the cupboard,
If you paid attention, you'd be wrong. and many people suspect he just let Halliburton (Cheney) run the country,
Which is just as hysterical as the Birther™ movement. up to and including who we decided to make war against, and for what actual reasons.
You forget... the US congress approved these operations. In fact, 2 6 days after the September 11 attacks, Operation Enduring Freedom commenced in Afghanistan. The reason for this campaign is to oust the Taliban from power, rid the region of al-Qaeda, and build a sustainable post-war Afghan government eventually involved 58 nations, many of them non-NATO members. In Iraq, 45 nations joined the United States in the March of 2003 with mission to oust Saddam Hussein from control in Baghdad. About a month later... other nations such as Angola and Ukraine had committed to joining the mission, raising the total number of coalition countries including the United States to 48. There is no question that there were major feth ups along the way (flawed intelligence, nation building, Abu Gahrib, mutliple surges, etc...) and that is something that we MUCH to learn from.... It is, however, nothing less than revisionist history to suggest America acted unilaterally in Iraq or that there were "cabals in the Bush administration" that manipulated the intelligence to line their own pockets.
Which Helping a company out is one thing. Manufacturing intelligence to start wars for the benifit of corporations is something entirely different.
Which is crazy-pants... this is stuff from Van Jones websites.
With Obama, I know I'll get flame for this, but I think alot of the hatred (not dissaproval, but hatred) is just plain racism. Older white voters, as well as voters in more racist areas of the country (like where I live), feel entitled that only their kind should run the country. Write this off all you want, but if you live here, you know its true.
 Which you'd be wrong. Sure, there are some racist donkey-caves who would, but they'd be a distance minority. Think about it... blacks are approx 13% of the US population... and yet, Obama won the Presidency TWICE. I fething hate, hate most of Obama's policies... and I challenge you to call me a racist for holding those views. All of my objections/reasoning are based on things outside of his skin color.
80999
Post by: jasper76
Cheney retires as chairman and CEO of Haliburton in 2000 with a $36 million dollar severance packeage to go be Bush's Vice President.
Before the war starts, Halliburton gets a $7 billion no-bid contract.
It is not very hard to connect the dots here. Beware the military industrial complex and all.
Anyways, I didn't mean that hatred of Obama's policies is likely due to racism...just hatred of the man.
And didn't the US Congress approve actions in Iraq after being presented with faulty intelligence. And I never said we went to Iraq alone, did I?
34390
Post by: whembly
jasper76 wrote:Cheney retirs as chairman and CEO of Haliburton in 2000 with a $36 million dollar severance packeage to go be Bush's Vice President.
That's typical for large corporations CEO severance package.
Before the war starts, Halliburton gets a $7 billion no-bid contract.
I do have MAJOR problems with "no-bid contracts" that is prevalent in government. Haliburton wasn't the only one...
Also, no-bid contracts didn't change under Obama's watch:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/may/13/obamas-mounting-hypocrisy/
Hypocrisy is his name....
It is not very hard to connect the dots here. Beware the military industrial complex and all.
It's a stretch... but, sure... watch out for 'em.
Anyways, I didn't mean that hatred of Obama's policies is likely due to racism...just hatred of the man.
Ah... okay.
Again, I'd posit that those folks are in the minority. Automatically Appended Next Post: jasper76 wrote:
And didn't the US Congress approve actions in Iraq after being presented with faulty intelligence. And I never said we went to Iraq alone, did I?
Right... but key word was "faulty intelligence". Not some, "back room Halliburton/Military Industrial Complex Villain smoking cigar Pull'n the Bush Puppet Strings" in order to maximize profits at the expense of blood.
80999
Post by: jasper76
Just to be clear, I also would vote 'disapprove' if polled on an Obama questionairre, alebeit likely for very different reasons than the conservative side of the fence.
But I don't hate the man. Many people in my immediate area do, and growing up around here, its no secret as to why.
I don't trust the Washington Times as a news source...not because its conservative, but because it was founded by a religious fanatic who literallty claimed to be the messiah. I know he's passed on now but something about that paper has always seemed highly suspect to me.
50326
Post by: curran12
Hey Frazzled, out of curiosity, is there any comparison for approval/popularity of Congress at the same time in each Presidency?
I'm interested if there's a correlation at all.
34390
Post by: whembly
 curran12 wrote:Hey Frazzled, out of curiosity, is there any comparison for approval/popularity of Congress at the same time in each Presidency?
I'm interested if there's a correlation at all.
This has been looked at and a "somewhat" consensus states that there's no strong link between the two. I'll see if I can find stuff.
Again, I think this is more of general 2nd term "fatigue", rather than something specific pulling down Obama's numbers.
50326
Post by: curran12
Oh I would absolutely agree that it is fatigue, though what I'm wondering is if the fatigue is exacerbated by a similar fatigue/displeasure/had-enough-of-this feeling with Congress as well.
As far as the man itself, I like Obama, and he had a good start, but I wholeheartedly agree that his performance has severely dropped over time. I'm more upset with Congress than him, but they are all symptomatic of the same problem within the system as a whole.
80999
Post by: jasper76
whembly wrote:Right... but key word was "faulty intelligence". Not some, "back room Halliburton/Military Industrial Complex Villain smoking cigar Pull'n the Bush Puppet Strings" in order to maximize profits at the expense of blood.
Perhaps I won't be able to break your image of a tin-hatter here, but I think its too much of a coincidence that if someone golden parachutes out of a war-profiteeting company into the White House, then that company conveniently gets a 7 billion dollar sweetheart deal on a war support contract for a war premised on bad intelligence, its not much of a stretch to assume collusion between that company and the administration.
But it is just an assumption, based on cynicism rather than crazy, and I'm happy to settle with just saying that the situation was very highly suspicious, as opposed to a foregone conclusion. I don't sit at home biting my nails over it or anything.
34390
Post by: whembly
jasper76 wrote: whembly wrote:Right... but key word was "faulty intelligence". Not some, "back room Halliburton/Military Industrial Complex Villain smoking cigar Pull'n the Bush Puppet Strings" in order to maximize profits at the expense of blood.
Perhaps I won't be able to break your image of a tin-hatter here, but I think its too much of a coincidence that if someone golden parachutes out of a war-profiteeting company into the White House, then that company conveniently gets a 7 billion dollar sweetheart deal on a war support contract for a war premised on bad intelligence, its not much of a stretch to assume collusion between that company and the administration.
But it is just an assumption, based on cynicism rather than crazy, and I'm happy to settle with just saying that the situation was very highly suspicious, as opposed to a foregone conclusion. I don't sit at home biting my nails over it or anything.
Okay... fair enough.
80999
Post by: jasper76
curran12 wrote:Oh I would absolutely agree that it is fatigue, though what I'm wondering is if the fatigue is exacerbated by a similar fatigue/displeasure/had-enough-of-this feeling with Congress as well.
I honestly think most people, moderate conservatives included, miss the perception of prosperity during the Clinton years (another reason why smart money is on Hillary for 2016). Since the perception of prosperity did not return in either the Bush or Obama adminsitrations, people at large become displeased with whatever figurehead happens to be in office.
Just a pet theory.
42144
Post by: cincydooley
A chick That was a higher up in CGI federal is a lady Obama friend and they received a "limited bid" contract for the horribly produced healthcare.gov.
Google, an American company that had already done something similar in google health, wasn't even considered.
20243
Post by: Grey Templar
jasper76 wrote: whembly wrote:Right... but key word was "faulty intelligence". Not some, "back room Halliburton/Military Industrial Complex Villain smoking cigar Pull'n the Bush Puppet Strings" in order to maximize profits at the expense of blood.
Perhaps I won't be able to break your image of a tin-hatter here, but I think its too much of a coincidence that if someone golden parachutes out of a war-profiteeting company into the White House, then that company conveniently gets a 7 billion dollar sweetheart deal on a war support contract for a war premised on bad intelligence, its not much of a stretch to assume collusion between that company and the administration.
But it is just an assumption, based on cynicism rather than crazy, and I'm happy to settle with just saying that the situation was very highly suspicious, as opposed to a foregone conclusion. I don't sit at home biting my nails over it or anything.
You might have a case if he ended up as Secretary of Defense or the President, but the Vice President has no real power over policy(other than being the tie breaker)
The Vice President is basically the appendix of the executive branch.
6772
Post by: Vaktathi
I have a feeling that at this point, with the way the media at large works and the largely binary nature of politics in the US, no presidential candidate is going to come out with positive numbers in the foreseeable future. There's simply too much invested in making them look bad and functioning as a scapegoat.
There's a lot of things I dislike Bush for, could even say hate him for, but not everything that happened under his administration was something he could control or had any role in, or were done for the reasons that many think they were. With Obama, many of the same things are true, like Bush, he deserves a lot of flack for things he's done and for turning out to be a gigantic hypocrite on a number of issues, but he also gets blamed for a lot of things that he couldn't possible have foreseen or done anything about.
I just don't think it's possible, barring repeated external distracting events, for a President to come out with positive numbers anymore, no matter who it is. There's just too much money and interest in dragging them down for the purposes of others.
80999
Post by: jasper76
Grey Templar wrote: jasper76 wrote: whembly wrote:Right... but key word was "faulty intelligence". Not some, "back room Halliburton/Military Industrial Complex Villain smoking cigar Pull'n the Bush Puppet Strings" in order to maximize profits at the expense of blood.
Perhaps I won't be able to break your image of a tin-hatter here, but I think its too much of a coincidence that if someone golden parachutes out of a war-profiteeting company into the White House, then that company conveniently gets a 7 billion dollar sweetheart deal on a war support contract for a war premised on bad intelligence, its not much of a stretch to assume collusion between that company and the administration.
But it is just an assumption, based on cynicism rather than crazy, and I'm happy to settle with just saying that the situation was very highly suspicious, as opposed to a foregone conclusion. I don't sit at home biting my nails over it or anything.
You might have a case if he ended up as Secretary of Defense or the President, but the Vice President has no real power over policy(other than being the tie breaker)
The Vice President is basically the appendix of the executive branch.
Not trying to be rude, but sincerely interested if you were alive and cognizant of politics during the Bush/Cheney years. Vice President Cheney was maybe the most powerful Vice President in US history....certainly in my living memory.
It was widely suspected even before the election that a vote for Bush was really a vote for Cheney, and during the administration, it was widely suspected that Bush was just a figurehead for the neo-conservative agenda championed by Cheney, and Cheney was the actual bottom-line decision maker.
I will put on half of a tin hat and say I personally believe the reality was somewhere in the middle. I believe decisions of foreign affairs and economics were pretty much ran by Cheney, while Bush took the lead on more domestic-related issues like Medicaid expansion, attempt at immigration reform, education reform, etc.
53375
Post by: hotsauceman1
 cincydooley wrote:A chick That was a higher up in CGI federal is a lady Obama friend and they received a "limited bid" contract for the horribly produced healthcare.gov.
Google, an American company that had already done something similar in google health, wasn't even considered.
Well that is good old fashion nepotism at work. Automatically Appended Next Post: jasper76 wrote:Cheney retires as chairman and CEO of Haliburton in 2000 with a $36 million dollar severance packeage to go be Bush's Vice President.
Before the war starts, Halliburton gets a $7 billion no-bid contract.
It is not very hard to connect the dots here. Beware the military industrial complex and all.
Anyways, I didn't mean that hatred of Obama's policies is likely due to racism...just hatred of the man.
And didn't the US Congress approve actions in Iraq after being presented with faulty intelligence. And I never said we went to Iraq alone, did I?
Next your gonna say Halliburtan caused 911
80999
Post by: jasper76
It may come as a pleasant surprise to you tha I do not believe that. I do believe that its possible, in my mind likely, that Cheney, directy or indirectly, pressured the US intelligence apparatus to come up with something they could show the world that woujld justify a full scale invasion if Iraq, in order to keep the war drums banging so Halliburton's 7 billion in contracts would not be put at risk.
Remember, this military industrial complex thing is no joke. It actually exists.
From a West Point grad, 5 Star General, Supreme Commander, and Republican President, Dwight Eisenhower.
A vital element in keeping the peace is our military establishment. Our arms must be mighty, ready for instant action, so that no potential aggressor may be tempted to risk his own destruction...
This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence — economic, political, even spiritual — is felt in every city, every statehouse, every office of the federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society. In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military–industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists, and will persist. We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals so that security and liberty may prosper together.
Anywho, I'm putting my tin hat back on and going to lunch at the re-education cafeteria where the moon landing studio used to be. Cheers!
37231
Post by: d-usa
Grey Templar wrote:
You might have a case if he ended up as Secretary of Defense or the President, but the Vice President has no real power over policy(other than being the tie breaker)
The Vice President is basically the appendix of the executive branch.
I think that is a pretty major misrepresentation of the office of the Vice President.
I think Obama's numbers are low for a number of reasons.
1) The Legislature has a rock bottom approval rating. It's pretty pathetic. But any nation that is that dissatisfied with politics is going to drag the executive approval rating down as well. That can come from a simple "a pox on all their houses" mindset, or a "if he can't make the legislature do their job then he must be just as bad as them" mindset. Congress might be acting like a bunch of 5 year old children throwing temper tantrum after temper tantrum while refusing to share their toys while walking around class with piss-pants, but at some point people watching that kindergarten train-wreck are going to turn to Obama and talk about what a crappy kindergarten teacher he is because he can't even control his class.
2) He is actually a moderate president. I know that might be blasphemy to the "Obama is a socialist" crowd, but he has actually been walking down the middle on many issues. But many conservatives will always complain that he is too far left and disapprove of his policies. And at the same time many liberals think he is too far right and disapprove of his policies. It's like the SCOTUS: how many decisions did they get right that made people on both sides very very happy, and how many decisions were a 5-4 split along ideological lines? Guess which few cases people are going to remember as evidence for an "activist" or "out of control" SCOTUS.
3) He didn't follow through on many promises. Promises he made to the right AND promises he made to the left. Broken promises = low approval ratings.
4) The economy is getting better, but it's still taking it's time. And people have been hurting for a long long time.
5) Lots of foreign conflicts. The nation is tired of war and doesn't want to get involved in any more fighting. But the nation also doesn't want people to be slaughtered and oppressed. The sheer number of conflicts are going to bring his ratings down, and anything he does is going to bring them down even more from one of those sides. Do nothing and people will complain that he is a heartless monster that abandons all our allies and the US will never be able to protect the world again. Send an army and people will complain that enough of our citizens died a useless death since nothing will change anyway. Do the limited actions we have been doing so far and both sides are going to bitch about it.
Judging any president during their actual term in office is pointless. Look at GWB: people were tired of him because all he was remembered for at the time was a bunch of wars we couldn't win, an economy that tanked, and crappy responses to disasters. People will always remember the crappy stuff first. But since then his approval rating went up, people paid attention to the good laws that were passed under his administration and humanitarian efforts such as the efforts that were made in Africa (and stuff that he continues to be involved in).
I think you need to wait at least 2 terms after they leave office to get a true picture of what they have done. It takes that long for hatred to go away and for policies to actually make a difference in the long term.
50512
Post by: Jihadin
Being my last deployment was Contract Oversight. Out of curiosity Jaspar do you know how No Bid Contract works?
Edit
Contracts are awarded the lowest bidder. A lot of us guessed that Cheney had access to the financial cost of logistical support the US Military of OEF/OIF and provided it to hos former firm. Who pretty much flatten the playing field.
What they couldn't support they themselves contracted out
80999
Post by: jasper76
Only in broad strokes. I believe the intention of no bid contracts is to expedite the process when only one company is capable of providing the service desired, or if its such a low $ contract that it really doesn't amount to much. Is this correct?
The logistical details of how this contract gets awarded and so forth, I don't know.
Here's what Wikipedia just told me ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_bid_contract):
The term "no-bid contract" is a popular phrase for what is officially known as a "sole source contract" which means that there is only one person or company that can provide the contractual services needed, so any attempt to obtain bids would only result in that person or company bidding on it.
A no-bid contract is awarded usually, but not always, by a government group after soliciting and negotiating with only one firm (see 48 CFR § 2.101). These contracts can be negotiated much more quickly than a typical competitive contract because there is no due-process but on the other hand, they are often fraught with suspicion that the company used illegal or immoral means to exclude competitors (usually by cronyism or bribery).
Nevertheless, U.S. law permits the government to award sole source contracts under specified circumstances (48 CFR Ch. 1, Part 6) but no-bid contracts are illegal under European Union commissioning law.[citation needed] Usually the reason is cost and urgency as a no-bid contract allows the government to get contractors working as quickly as possible in an "urgent" situation.
Examples of potential no-bid contracts include those awarded to Blackwater and Halliburton by the United States government for work relating to the War in Iraq and most currently Amazon sourcing the Kindle for Second Language Teaching overseas by the State Department in a no-bid, $16.5 million contract because “the Amazon Kindle is the only e-Reader on the market that meets the Government’s needs, and Amazon as the only company possessing the essential capabilities required by the Government. It has international 3G, text-to-speech features and a long battery life, which “other e-readers such as the Barnes and Noble Nook, the Sony Reader Daily and Kobe [sic] e-Reader cannot provide."
Legal reasons for sole source contracts in the USA include:[1]
1.only one firm has a product that will meet the projects needs or only one firm can do the work;
2.the existence of an unusual and compelling urgency;
3.for purposes of industrial mobilization or expert services;
4.an international agreement;
5.sole source is authorized or required by law, e.g., socio-economic programs;
6.national security and
7.the public interest.
50512
Post by: Jihadin
Grey Templar wrote:Please, racism being the reason to dislike Obama is so far down the list of why he is disliked by the majority of people.
Its just a convenient scapegoat from the left to say its just racism.
Jebus. I totally agree with Grey Templar
Example
Holder awhile back mention the the phrase "Take back America" was in a way Racist depending on who's saying it..
Then Biden yesterday or Tueday said the same thing to Automatically Appended Next Post: jasper76 wrote:Only in broad strokes. I believe the intention of no bid contracts is to expedite the process when only one company is capable of providing the service desired, or if its such a low $ contract that it really doesn't amount to much. Is this correct?
The logistical details of how this contract gets awarded and so forth, I don't know.
Basically KBR knew the minimum it cost to support OEF and eventually OIF and combined a contract tailored made.
KBR was kicked out from Afghanistan after the sixth soldier was killed in the shower by faulty wiring. They really got hammered for it for using a master Electrician from India instead of the US as specified in the contract.
Iraq was different being General Odieno said it best "Wht are we switching out horses in the middle of the river?" being we were withdrawing out from Iraq as fast as possible.
80999
Post by: jasper76
Again, I didn't say racism is a reason to explain why many people dislike Obama or disapprove of his job performance.
I said, and I beleive, that racism is the best reason to explain why so many people hate Obama.
This came up because someone wondered why GW Bush and Obama have inspired much more visceral hatred amongst elements of the citizenry than their post-Nixon predecessors.
In any case, if you lived where I live, or somewhere like it, this really would not even be a controversial idea. It would be common sense, because you would hear it expressed with the thinnest of veneers almost every time the subject of Obama comes up and there are no non-white people around. I guess you guys can pretend racist people don't hate Obama, or that racist people don't exist. A little time south of the Mason Dixon will disabuse you of that notion.
70365
Post by: Gentleman_Jellyfish
jasper76 wrote:I said, and I beleive, that racism is the best reason to explain why so many people hate Obama.
And I think that's a silly blanket statement to try and make because it seems, based on your post, that you just live in an area more prone to racism. This does not make statements like the one quoted true
80999
Post by: jasper76
Maybe things are different in Washington State, I'll grant you that.
20243
Post by: Grey Templar
Where are these people who hate Obama and how many is "many"?
70365
Post by: Gentleman_Jellyfish
jasper76 wrote:Maybe things are different in Washington State, I'll grant you that.
Right, which is why I'm not using Washington state as a basis for blanket statements about people being racist.
80999
Post by: jasper76
Very good. I'll just copy and paste my first statement on the issue, which is not a blanket statement inasmuch as I said I thought "alot of the hatred" is just plain racism, because that's all I meant to say on why I think there is so much visceral hatred towards Obama:
With Obama, I know I'll get flame for this, but I think alot of the hatred (not dissaproval, but hatred) is just plain racism. Older white voters, as well as voters in more racist areas of the country (like where I live), feel entitled that only their kind should run the country. Write this off all you want, but if you live here, you know its true.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
For starters, the South. Then probably the North.
I can't speak too much abot the North, but I live in Virginia outside of the DC area, and racist comments about Obama are so pervasive that you can't do much to avoid them.
Go farther South, things generally get worse in the racism department. This is not news or anything...I'm pretty suprised to find that people don't already know that racism is pervasive in the South, and is applied to people's outlook on Obama and other African-American politicians.
50512
Post by: Jihadin
Jaspar.....you going off personnel perception or some establish know documented fact?
I know quite a few Marines...
Dammit Joan Rivers just died
37231
Post by: d-usa
I know some racist donkey-caves that hate he president because he is black. It's pretty hilarious that people would argue that they don't exist.
50512
Post by: Jihadin
 Jihadin wrote:Jaspar.....you going off personnel perception or some establish know documented fact?
I know quite a few Marines...
Dammit Joan Rivers just died
Edit
Example
I know quite a few Marines who hate Obama for not helping to speed up the trial for the Marine stuck in the Mexican Judicial Goat Rope process
Automatically Appended Next Post:  d-usa wrote:I know some racist donkey-caves that hate he president because he is black. It's pretty hilarious that people would argue that they don't exist.
KKK is well known establish entity
34390
Post by: whembly
The Carter Malaise Redux™?
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/mood_of_america/right_direction_or_wrong_track
Right Direction or Wrong Track
25% Say U.S. Heading in Right Direction
Wednesday, September 03, 2014
Twenty-five percent (25%) of Likely U.S. Voters think the country is heading in the right direction, according to a new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey for the week ending August 31.
This is up two points from the week before which tied the lowest level of confidence since last October during the temporary government shutdown. The number who say the country is heading in the right direction has been below 30% for most of this year.
Early last October during the shutdown, confidence in the country’s course fell to 13%, the lowest finding in five years.
Sixty-six percent (66%) of voters now think the country is headed down the wrong track. This finding is down three points from 69% a week ago, the highest negative finding since last November. Eighty percent (80%) felt the country was on the wrong track in early October 2013.
A year ago, 30% said the country was heading in the right direction, while 62% said it was going down the wrong track.
(Want a free daily e-mail update? If it's in the news, it's in our polls). Rasmussen Reports updates are also available on Twitter or Facebook.
The national telephone survey of 3,500 Likely Voters was conducted by Rasmussen Reports on August 25-31, 2014. The margin of sampling error for the survey is +/- 2 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence. Fieldwork for all Rasmussen Reports surveys is conducted by Pulse Opinion Research, LLC. See methodology.
Eighty-seven percent (87%) of Republicans and 70% of voters not affiliated with either major political party think the country is on the wrong track. Democrats are evenly divided.
Blacks now think the country is headed in the right direction by a 47% to 36% margin. Seventy-two percent (72%) of whites and 54% of other minority voters think the country is headed in the wrong direction.
Sixty-three percent (63%) of the Political Class say the country is headed in the right direction, while 78% of Mainstream voters say the country is headed down the wrong track.
Eighty-six percent (86%) of conservatives and 60% of moderates say the country is headed down the wrong track. Liberals are almost evenly divided.
The Rasmussen Employment Index which measures worker confidence reached a new all-time high in August after falling for two straight months. This suggests the upcoming jobs report could be better than expected.
Americans overwhelmingly count on their local water supply, but they're not overly confident that it's well protected.
Nearly half of voters now think Congress should go through the new national health care law to fine tune it rather than repeal it entirely.
Most voters have an unfavorable opinion of the U.S. Department of Justice and think it is more interested in politics than in serving justice.
Support for Common Core education standards has rebounded from earlier this summer, but most Americans are still not in favor of tying a state’s federal funding to the adoption of the standards.
Crosstabs and historical data are available to Platinum Members only.
Please sign up for the Rasmussen Reports daily e-mail update (it's free) or follow us on Twitter or Facebook. Let us keep you up to date with the latest public opinion news.
50512
Post by: Jihadin
I remember (Obama) use to have black hair before he became POTUS.......
80999
Post by: jasper76
Right?
Whenever I see those before/after pictures, I wonder who in their right mind would even want the job.
46277
Post by: squidhills
Jihadin wrote:I remember (Obama) use to have black hair before he became POTUS.......
Yeah, W was the same way. A scattering of grey at the start and then by the end of term #2, you could count his black hair on one hand and have fingers left over.
20243
Post by: Grey Templar
d-usa wrote:I know some racist donkey-caves that hate he president because he is black. It's pretty hilarious that people would argue that they don't exist.
Nobody is claiming they don't. But to claim that racism is the cause of Obama's low ratings is asinine.
53375
Post by: hotsauceman1
Yes it is because he is a secret Muslim obviously
241
Post by: Ahtman
Jihadin wrote:I remember (Obama) use to have black hair before he became POTUS.......
I think that is pretty much every President that ever took the job; it is a job that wrecks you.
Grey Templar wrote:Nobody is claiming they don't. But to claim that racism is the cause of Obama's low ratings is asinine.
Except I don't think anyone here made the argument that the only reason they are low is because of racism, so it seems a bit silly to refute an argument that wasn't made.
221
Post by: Frazzled
Sienisoturi wrote:I'm not very good at american politics, so I hope fellow dakkanauts can enlighten me on the subject on why does everyone seem to dislike G.W. Bush?
They are jealous of his barbeque sauce. No Democratic president could ever cook brisket like the Bushes. Ok maybe Johnson, but he was a Texan too. Automatically Appended Next Post:  Kilkrazy wrote:This surely raises a significant chance that Obama will not win a third term.
I know right? 
37231
Post by: d-usa
Grey Templar wrote: d-usa wrote:I know some racist donkey-caves that hate he president because he is black. It's pretty hilarious that people would argue that they don't exist.
Nobody is claiming they don't. But to claim that racism is the cause of Obama's low ratings is asinine.
And others may claim that continuously refuting an argument that nobody made is asinine.
221
Post by: Frazzled
Easy E wrote:Where is the obligatory "Obama is truly histories greatest monster" comment?
That was Garfield. How can you trust the US Presidency to a cat? Automatically Appended Next Post: LuciusAR wrote: Easy E wrote:Where is the obligatory "Obama is truly histories greatest monster" comment?
That's another thing I've noticed. There is allot of Hyperbole regarding both presidents Bush and Obama. I've never seem so much hatred directed towards two presidents before and I can personally thing of far worse post war Presidents (both Republican and Democrat) than either of them. I don't mean legitimate criticism of their polices, I mean ludicrous hyperbole and hatred.
I'm wondering if its something to do with the prevalence of the Internet during the terms of these two Presidents? I can't imagine anything like the 'birther' conspiracies gaining any kind of traction in the pre internet days.
The great Freakout started with Clinton. CLintons were supposed to have killed off leakers of their great plot to take over the world or something. Nixon had conspirators too but they turned out to be...accurate. Automatically Appended Next Post: jasper76 wrote: LuciusAR wrote: Easy E wrote:Where is the obligatory "Obama is truly histories greatest monster" comment?
That's another thing I've noticed. There is allot of Hyperbole regarding both presidents Bush and Obama. I've never seem so much hatred directed towards two presidents before and I can personally thing of far worse post war Presidents (both Republican and Democrat) than either of them. I don't mean legitimate criticism of their polices, I mean ludicrous hyperbole and hatred.
I'm wondering if its something to do with the prevalence of the Internet during the terms of these two Presidents? I can't imagine anything like the 'birther' conspiracies gaining any kind of traction in the pre internet days.
With Bush I think its because, lets face it, he wasnt the sharpest knife in the cupboard, and many people suspect he just let Halliburton (Cheney) run the country, up to and including who we decided to make war against, and for what actual reasons. Helping a company out is one thing. Manufacturing intelligence to start wars for the benifit of corporations is something entirely different.
With Obama, I know I'll get flame for this, but I think alot of the hatred (not dissaproval, but hatred) is just plain racism. Older white voters, as well as voters in more racist areas of the country (like where I live), feel entitled that only their kind should run the country. Write this off all you want, but if you live here, you know its true.
If 60% of the US is racist how did he get elected, twice? Automatically Appended Next Post: jasper76 wrote:Right?
Whenever I see those before/after pictures, I wonder who in their right mind would even want the job.
Look at Reagan. You'd swear he was some kind of soul vampire or something.
20243
Post by: Grey Templar
d-usa wrote: Grey Templar wrote: d-usa wrote:I know some racist donkey-caves that hate he president because he is black. It's pretty hilarious that people would argue that they don't exist.
Nobody is claiming they don't. But to claim that racism is the cause of Obama's low ratings is asinine.
And others may claim that continuously refuting an argument that nobody made is asinine.
Jasper76 was pretty much putting forth that argument. And claimed that "hatred" = racism. You can definitely hate, loath, or abhor Obama for his actions as President, which isn't a racist thing to do.
Unless you are also postulating that the hate Bush got was racism as well.
62229
Post by: Minx
Grey Templar wrote:Jasper76 was pretty much putting forth that argument. And claimed that "hatred" = racism.
Unless you are also postulating that the hate Bush got was racism as well.
No, he never argued or claimed that at all. Go back and read his posts.
G.W. Bush on the other hand seemed to be totally incompetent to me and just begging for criticism but that's probably just my first impression clouding my view as his last few interviews/public appearances were quite different.
50512
Post by: Jihadin
Grey. Leave it be. People going to see racism in whatever situation, instance, act, phrase, demeanor, posture, non participation, participation, view, perception, and whatever else so it can fit their view point
80999
Post by: jasper76
@ Grey Templar: I didn't mean that among the population of people who hate Obama as a human being, 100% of the reason why in all cases is racism.
No, I think people hated Bush, and they sure did hate him, due to partisanship and politics more than racism. There.May have been an element of reverse racism, if that's still the right phrase, I really never gave that much thought at the time.
I did not hate him, but I disliked him at the time because, in case you dont recall, he was pretty arrogant, he had mancrush-style relationships with Blair, and of all people Putin, and he made us look weak on the world stage because he made us look unintelligent by proxy. And then he fumbled a war of choice big time, no matter how we got in there.
These days, I think he does good things and in interviews I've seen, his arrogance has basically vanished. I think he's taking a good and honorable Carter-style approach to his days since office.
37231
Post by: d-usa
Grey Templar wrote: d-usa wrote: Grey Templar wrote: d-usa wrote:I know some racist donkey-caves that hate he president because he is black. It's pretty hilarious that people would argue that they don't exist.
Nobody is claiming they don't. But to claim that racism is the cause of Obama's low ratings is asinine.
And others may claim that continuously refuting an argument that nobody made is asinine.
Jasper76 was pretty much putting forth that argument.
Nope.
But I find it pretty amazing that you can take this:
With Obama, I know I'll get flame for this, but I think alot of the hatred (not dissaproval, but hatred) is just plain racism.
And turn it into this:
racism is the cause of Obama's low ratings
But hey, whatever floats your boat. If you want to be the old man yelling at clouds of this thread then more power to you.
Meanwhile, everybody else that realizes that nobody in this thread made the claim that 61% of the people are racist will be over in the other corner.
50512
Post by: Jihadin
jasper76 wrote:I didn't mean that among the population of people who hate Obama as a human being, 100% of the reason why in all cases is racism.
No, I think people hated Bush, and they sure did hate him, due to partisanship, and if you don't recall.
I did not hate him, but I disliked him at the time because, in case you dont recall, he was pretty arrogant, he had mancrush-style relationships with Blair, and of all people Putin, and he made us look weak on the world stage because he made us look unintelligent by proxy. And then he fumbled a war of choice big time, no matter how we got in there.
These days, I think he does good things and in interviews I've seen, his arrogance has basically vanished. I think he's taking a good and honorable Carter-style approach to his days since office.
Followed by another who's a bit stumbling on some world and internal issues.
241
Post by: Ahtman
Jihadin wrote:Grey. Leave it be. People going to see racism in whatever situation, instance, act, phrase, demeanor, posture, non participation, participation, view, perception, and whatever else so it can fit their view point
Then there are people who want to deny racism in any situation, instance, act, phrase, demeanor, posture, non participation, participation, view, perception, and whatever else so it can fit their view point.
Neither are helpful or well considered positions.
50512
Post by: Jihadin
Ahtman wrote: Jihadin wrote:Grey. Leave it be. People going to see racism in whatever situation, instance, act, phrase, demeanor, posture, non participation, participation, view, perception, and whatever else so it can fit their view point
Then there are people who want to deny racism in any situation, instance, act, phrase, demeanor, posture, non participation, participation, view, perception, and whatever else so it can fit their view point.
Neither are helpful or well considered positions.
And then there are those who throw a "Racism" label on anything and/or anyone. No one is innocent of racism and/or discrimination.
221
Post by: Frazzled
True dat.
241
Post by: Ahtman
Jihadin wrote:And then there are those who throw a "Racism" label on anything and/or anyone.
You saying that or me saying "And then there are those who would deny a "Racism" label on anything and/or anyone" doesn't tell us anything new or move the conversation forward even a little, it just repeats what was already said. The truth is that race plays a role in it, but it isn't everything; it is piece of the puzzle not the whole puzzle. I know it is more difficult to have a nuanced view when all we want to do is simplify, but it tends to more accurately reflect the complexities of our world.
50512
Post by: Jihadin
Ahtman wrote: Jihadin wrote:And then there are those who throw a "Racism" label on anything and/or anyone.
You saying that or me saying "And then there are those who would deny a "Racism" label on anything and/or anyone" doesn't tell us anything new or move the conversation forward even a little, it just repeats what was already said. The truth is that race plays a role in it, but it isn't everything; it is piece of the puzzle not the whole puzzle. I know it is more difficult to have a nuanced view when all we want to do is simplify, but it tends to more accurately reflect the complexities of our world.
How many people understand that complexity. Its simple to throw the card then it is to break it down to Barney level using a butcher block and a red crayola.
Edit for Grammer
34390
Post by: whembly
Mitt... it shoulda been you... 
Mitt Romney: The need for a mighty U.S. military
By Mitt Romney September 4 at 2:09 PM
The writer is the former governor of Massachusetts. In 2012, the Republican Party nominated him for president of the United States.
Russia invades, China bullies, Iran spins centrifuges, the Islamic State (a terrorist threat “beyond anything that we’ve seen,” according to the defense secretary ) threatens — and Washington slashes the military. Reason stares.
Several arguments are advanced to justify the decimation of our defense. All of them are wrong.
The president asserts that we must move to “a new order that’s based on a different set of principles, that’s based on a sense of common humanity.” The old order, he is saying, where America’s disproportionate strength holds tyrants in check and preserves the sovereignty of nations, is to be replaced.
It is said that the first rule of wing-walking is to not let go with one hand until the other hand has a firm grip. So, too, before we jettison our reliance on U.S. strength, there must be something effective in its place — if such a thing is even possible. Further, the appeal to “common humanity” as the foundation of this new world order ignores the reality that humanity is far from common in values and views. Humanity may commonly agree that there is evil, but what one people calls evil another calls good.
There are those who claim that a multipolar world is preferable to one led by a strong United States. Were these other poles nations such as Australia, Canada, France and Britain, I might concur. But with emerging poles being China, Russia and Iran, the world would not see peace; it would see bullying, invasion and regional wars. And ultimately, one would seek to conquer the others, unleashing world war.
Some argue that the United States should simply withdraw its military strength from the world — get out of the Middle East, accept nuclear weapons in Iran and elsewhere, let China and Russia have their way with their neighbors and watch from the sidelines as jihadists storm on two or three continents. Do this, they contend, and the United States would be left alone.
No, we would not. The history of the 20th century teaches that power-hungry tyrants ultimately feast on the appeasers — to use former Mississippi governor Haley Barbour’s phrase, we would be paying the cannibals to eat us last. And in the meantime, our economy would be devastated by the disruption of trade routes, the turmoil in global markets and the tumult of conflict across the world. Global peace and stability are very much in our immediate national interest.
Some insist that our military is already so much stronger than that of any other nation that we can safely cut it back, again and again. Their evidence: the relative size of our defense budget. But these comparisons are nearly meaningless: Russia and China don’t report their actual defense spending, they pay their servicemen a tiny fraction of what we pay ours and their cost to build military armament is also a fraction of ours. More relevant is the fact that Russia’s nuclear arsenal is significantly greater than our own and that, within six years, China will have more ships in its navy than we do. China already has more service members. Further, our military is tasked with many more missions than those of other nations: preserving the freedom of the seas, the air and space; combating radical jihadists; and preserving order and stability around the world as well as defending the United States.
The most ludicrous excuse for shrinking our military derives from the president’s thinking: “Things are much less dangerous now than they were 20 years ago, 25 years ago or 30 years ago.” The “safer world” trial balloon has been punctured by recent events in Ukraine, Afghanistan, Libya, Egypt, Gaza, Nigeria, Somalia, Syria and Iraq. “Failures of imagination” led to tragedy 13 years ago; today, no imagination is required to picture what would descend on the United States if we let down our guard.
The arguments for shrinking our military fall aside to reveal the real reason for the cuts: Politicians, and many of the people who elect them, want to keep up spending here at home. Entitlements and programs are putting pressure on the federal budget: We either cut defense, or we cut spending on ourselves. That, or raise our taxes.
To date, the politicians have predictably voted to slash defense. As Bret Stephens noted in Commentary magazine this month, the Army is on track to be the size it was in 1940, the Navy to be the size it was in 1917, the Air Force to be smaller than in 1947 and our nuclear arsenal to be no larger than it was under President Harry S. Truman.
Washington politicians are poised to make a historic decision, for us, for our descendants and for the world. Freedom and peace are in the balance. They will choose whether to succumb to the easy path of continued military hollowing or to honor their constitutional pledge to protect the United States.
42144
Post by: cincydooley
gak, if we want to talk about racism, let's talk about the racism that got Obama elected.
47598
Post by: motyak
cincydooley wrote:gak, if we want to talk about racism, let's talk about the racism that got Obama elected.
How about we don't, and instead get back on topic? Rather than this just devolving further south.
50512
Post by: Jihadin
Wait now...to some of you all the US Military is a welfare/entitlement establishment....why cut funds there.
Oh and Motty....did you really have to use the word "South" 
30287
Post by: Bromsy
Sienisoturi wrote:I'm not very good at american politics, so I hope fellow dakkanauts can enlighten me on the subject on why does everyone seem to dislike G.W. Bush?
I actually really liked Bush. Probably my favorite president in recent memory, not only because he seemed like a guy I'd like to grab a beer and some ribs with; he also signed my two most favorite recent pieces of legislation as well -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/President%27s_Emergency_Plan_for_AIDS_Relief
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Service-Members%27_Protection_Act
50512
Post by: Jihadin
Bush was good for laughs and I trusted him..military types stick together and Bush Senior jumps from moving aircraft's in '40's and 2000's
5470
Post by: sebster
jasper76 wrote:With Obama, I know I'll get flame for this, but I think alot of the hatred (not dissaproval, but hatred) is just plain racism. Older white voters, as well as voters in more racist areas of the country (like where I live), feel entitled that only their kind should run the country. Write this off all you want, but if you live here, you know its true.
Except that conservatives hated Clinton as much (possibly more), and liberals hated Bush just as much.
These are more partisan times, and absolutely hating the guy in the oval office if he isn't your guy, and pretending things would be totally different if your guy was in power is just part of the way things are. Automatically Appended Next Post: whembly wrote:In Iraq, 45 nations joined the United States in the March of 2003 with mission to oust Saddam Hussein from control in Baghdad.
Outside of the UK (and even there it is debatable), the only reason any of those countries joined in the invasion of Iraq was to maintain and improve relations with the US. Trying to make some kind of case that there was some kind of international, consensus driven decision to invade Iraq is inventing a fantasy.
The entirety of people who felt there was any kind of reason to re-enter Iraq was a fringe group of thinkers in the US... it's just that that fringe group happened to have the ear of the president, and so the US went in and much of the rest of the world that's attached at the hip to the US followed them in.
On the claim that it was all some kind of Halliburton plot, of course, you're completely right, that's also very silly. Automatically Appended Next Post: jasper76 wrote:Cheney retires as chairman and CEO of Haliburton in 2000 with a $36 million dollar severance packeage to go be Bush's Vice President.
Before the war starts, Halliburton gets a $7 billion no-bid contract.
It is not very hard to connect the dots here. Beware the military industrial complex and all.
Except that just listing two things with some kind of connection and concluding a conspiratorial link is essentially very lazy thinking.
First up, you have to put context in to this - Halliburton was receiving lucrative government contracts already. Anyone in Halliburton with any kind of serious government connections was already stupidly rich, and had little motive to risk that cashcow by plotting to start a war.
So instead you need to start looking away from the money, and figure that maybe this wasn't just a cash grab. Then you go and start reading the stuff guys like Cheney, Rumsfeld and Jeb Bush were writing in the build up to Iraq, about the need to establish a new American Century through the use of US military superiority to reshape the Middle East to one that looked favourably on the US.
It was all weird global political theory - before the term neo-con became a meaningless attack it has real meaning. Automatically Appended Next Post: curran12 wrote:Hey Frazzled, out of curiosity, is there any comparison for approval/popularity of Congress at the same time in each Presidency?
I'm interested if there's a correlation at all.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/124922/Presidential-Approval-Center.aspx
You can compare up to four presidents, going back to Carter.
From my eyes, I think the pattern is that there is no pattern. We can stare at different president's graphs and write some narrative or another, but its pretty close to impossible to just eyeball the graph and predict where it's going next. At the same point in his presidency, GW Bush looked like he was building up some momentum, but then his figures just plummet, plateau in the low 30s and never really recover*. Clinton's figures build steadily over his second term, up in to high 60s before plummeting, and plateauing out in the high 50s.
I mean, it isn't hard to figure out what specific incidents in those president's careers caused the rise and fall in the figures, but the point is that the figures themselves have no in-built momentum - you can't say 'he is increasing in popularity, therefore the most likely thing is a continued increase in popularity'.
*Until a few years after he left office, which of course the graph doesn't cover. Automatically Appended Next Post: whembly wrote:Twenty-five percent (25%) of Likely U.S. Voters think the country is heading in the right direction[/color], according to a new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey for the week ending August 31.
This is up two points from the week before which tied the lowest level of confidence since last October during the temporary government shutdown. The number who say the country is heading in the right direction has been below 30% for most of this year.
When asked if the stock market went up or down last year, most people thought it declined. It was, of course, a year of tremendous returns for the economy. When asked if unemployment increased or decreased last year, most people thought it stayed as bad as it had been. Which is interesting, because it shows how far the popular political narrative can be from the real economic fundamentals.
Which goes to show how fundamentally weird politics is. A president's approval rating is based largely on people's impression of how well the economy is going, but not only is the president's ability to improve the economy dwarfed by its random fluctuations, but ultimately the actual state of the economy doesn't even matter that much to what people think about the economy.
So what does all that mean, politically? I don't know, I guess it shows the importance of story telling in politics. I guess it highlights why Reagan's 'morning in America' was such a brilliant piece of politics. And I wonder if that might be the best approach for whoever wants to be the next president. Automatically Appended Next Post: cincydooley wrote:gak, if we want to talk about racism, let's talk about the racism that got Obama elected.
The claims of racism against Obama are vastly overblown, but I really don’t see how you improve the situation at all by countering with a completely ludicrous piece of nonsense like ‘racism got Obama elected’.
34390
Post by: whembly
Just wanted to chime in sebster... great post.
As to Reagan's 'morning in America'... let's hope the next president models these radio addresses in the same vein as Robin William's "Goooooooooood Morning Vietnaaaaam!"
Maybe as in: "Goooooooooood Morning 'Muuuuuuurica!"
221
Post by: Frazzled
Jihadin wrote:Bush was good for laughs and I trusted him..military types stick together and Bush Senior jumps from moving aircraft's in '40's and 2000's
Bush Sr. is THE MAN. Plus that kindly old grandpa was once CIA. Grandpa...MASTER ASSASSIN!! 
42144
Post by: cincydooley
95% in the exit polls could make the argument that it isn't a "completely ludicrous piece of nonsense".
Obviously claiming it "won the election" is a minor bit of hyperbole (in reality it was him carrying 55% of "young" whites). But there's a big problem, IMO, when so many influential celebrities cited their sole reason for voting for Obama as his blackness.
241
Post by: Ahtman
cincydooley wrote:when so many influential celebrities cited their sole reason for voting for Obama as his blackness.
I would love to see these quotes from celebrities saying that was the only reason they voted for Pres. Obama.
44290
Post by: LoneLictor
Does anyone seriously believe that being black was an advantage for Obama?
They do realize that black Presidents are fairly rare, right? Being black means consistently being locked out of the higher levels of society. There might not be a written code that says, "No blacks allowed" anymore, but racism hasn't been forgotten. Statistically, black people are poorer, have worse educations, and are less likely to be picked for jobs even if they have the exact same application as a white person. They're more likely to die violent deaths. They're a helluva lot more likely to die violent deaths at the hands of the police. Being black is rarely, if ever, an advantage.
20243
Post by: Grey Templar
Sadly, with the way our politics go it was definitely a factor.
I personally knew several people who voted for him solely because he was African American.
As for it being an advantage, its a huge one when trying to get educational assistance or applying for college.
51881
Post by: BlaxicanX
Being black might have been an advantage, but not as big as some people think. Obama wasn't the first black man to run for President, nor was he the last in the case of Herman Cain. If being Black was such a huge advantage we'd have long since had a Black Prez before him.
Obama nominally became President because he's an excellent speaker, his campaign was well-run, Republican-fatigue and his opposing candidates were all idiots who basically gave the elections away.
42144
Post by: cincydooley
Ahtman wrote: cincydooley wrote:when so many influential celebrities cited their sole reason for voting for Obama as his blackness.
I would love to see these quotes from celebrities saying that was the only reason they voted for Pres. Obama.
Here's one:
http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/1942724
There are more.
37231
Post by: d-usa
Was asked for proof that "he's black" is the only reason a celebrity gave for voting for Obama.
Presents a link that:
A) shows many reasons for voting for Obama. A list of reasons some people might even call it. A pro/con list.
B) would be pretty silly to be taken seriously by anyone.
12313
Post by: Ouze
This is the first time in the OT, I believe, that I have seen someone post in defense of their assertion photographic proof they are 100% wrong and still believe they are right. It's literally pigeon chess up in here now.
Christ, this place sucks.
38860
Post by: MrDwhitey
Holy fething gak did he seriously link that?
My sides, oh my god.
50512
Post by: Jihadin
Also a lot to do with people not really paying attention to politics throwing a vote in. Media influence played a huge role. We had this thread a long while back
42144
Post by: cincydooley
I'm not quite sure how that "proves me wrong". It doesn't. Here are more:
http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/1271797
http://www.businessinsider.com/stacey-dash-says-obama-administration-bullies-2013-9
Automatically Appended Next Post:
d-usa wrote::
A) shows many reasons for voting for Obama. A list of reasons some people might even call it. A pro/con list.
Disagree here. Pretty much every reason on the pro Obama list there can be attributed to "blackness"
B) would be pretty silly to be taken seriously by anyone.
Of course it would. That doesn't mean millions of people in our horribly ignorant voting populace 1) won't listen to him (because people listen to celebrities TONS); 2) don't agree with him.
44290
Post by: LoneLictor
You know, sometimes the Off-Topic Forum can be a little frustrating, but in the end, I wholeheartedly believe its still a good place where one can have an intelligent discussion. In fact -
47598
Post by: motyak
Truer words were never spoken friend robo-snail
|
|
