Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Wow
http://www.gallup.com/home.aspx?ref=logo

Trying to link to this one?

http://www.gallup.com/poll/175529/obama-strong-disapproval-double-strong-approval.aspx

"It wasn't his fault, it was all Congress"

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.

Does this mean the 61% of the country is racist

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Does this mean the 61% of the country is racist

If certain people are to be believed, yes.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Does this mean the 61% of the country is racist

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.

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.

 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.

 Ahtman wrote:
Next comes the feigned outrage and disbelief.

My word!

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.

He isn't the president we need, but the one we deserve

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
He isn't the president we need, but the one we deserve

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.

*meh*

It's probably more of a byproduct of "Obama-Fatigue®".

However, lemme just say... Romney was right!

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Does this mean the 61% of the country is racist

Man, what an improvement from before!

 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.

 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

 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.

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?

 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?

 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".

This surely raises a significant chance that Obama will not win a third term.

 whembly wrote:
"Conservative Press???"

o.O

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".

I think this just proves my point you can keep people happy most of the time and Americans none of the time.

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?

 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.

Where is the obligatory "Obama is truly histories greatest monster" comment?

 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.

 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.

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.