• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Obama's Approval Rating Drops to Lowest Ever, According to Gallup

Status
Not open for further replies.
My wife has been battling cancer twice over the last three years and I couldn't be happier with the treatment she is getting. We don't need Obamacare and apparently neither do you.
I pray your wife beats it. Your personal story, however, bears no weight in reegard to the millions of people who need medical treatment they can't afford.
 
How does UHC provide lower costs and better care than what you are getting right now. Please give me an example anywhere else in the world where UHC has been successful in improving healthcare and lowering costs?

uhhh just about every country has some form of UHC.....Singapore for example.
 
Oh? Does this mean you've finally found someone who can beat Obama? :lamo


No, it's what I do when you lie. Stop lying and I'll have no reason to call you on it.


8 million jobs were lost in Bush's Great Recession. And his net gain was so poor, that the unemployment rate doubled on his watch. Unemployment was higher (and still growing) when Bush left office than every other president dating back to Herbert Hoover.


Whoooa, you're lying again. By your measure, it resulted in 3½ million jobs saved. A success since his stimulus targeted 3 million.


And yet his record on unemployment is better than every Republican president going back as far as the data allows. Guess that makes your standards even lower than mine. :cool:

Here's a list of presidents, along with the percentage of increase, or decrease, of the U3 unemployment rate after 30 months in office...


Nixon ............ +76%
Bush ............. +48%
Eisenhower ... +38%
Ford* ............. +36%
GHW Bush ..... +26%
Reagan ......... +25%
Obama .......... +17%
Kennedy ........ -15%
Clinton ........... -22%
Carter ............ -24%
Johnson ......... -33%


Bureau of Labor Statistics Data

* = Ford served 29 months

Aw, wonderful, percentage change again. Let's pass that out to the 25 plus million unemployed and under Employed Americans today. Doubt they are part of the 40% that support Obama today. Either Romney or Perry will be Romney as the majority in this country aren't the blind ideologues that you apparently are. They can actuall look at the Obama results and make a decision. "Your" incompetent President shows what happens when you put a Community agitator in the WH
 
uhhh just about every country has some form of UHC.....Singapore for example.

Does Singapore have 310 million people spread out over the geography we have here? I don't see an answer to the question
 
I pray your wife beats it. Your personal story, however, bears no weight in reegard to the millions of people who need medical treatment they can't afford.

Thank you for the prayers, millions of people who need medical treatment are getting it, that is a liberal strawman to expand control and power over the lives of others.
 
When I was sitting in the ER carrying about 25 ponds of fluid in my ankles and legs and a panel of doctors in front of me said "Hello and welcome to the cardiac" about the last thing on my mind was ideological positions on the so called "nanny state."

I was pretty much dieing at that moment.
I am proud to live in a country which takes care of those who are sick and too poor to afford adequate health care.
 
Welcome to the best medical system in the world without Obamacare.
The one in whcih you can receive nothing more than emergency care if you don't have insurance, government assistance or can't afford to pay the doctor up front?
 
I am proud to live in a country which takes care of those who are sick and too poor to afford adequate health care.

It is pretty hard to be extremely productive when your heart has an ejection fraction of 10%.

Normal is 58%

oh and this through no fault of my own. Mine is a congenital defect with a grim prognosis.
 
Last edited:
Aw, wonderful, percentage change again. Let's pass that out to the 25 plus million unemployed and under Employed Americans today.
Why does he need to? The GOP has yet to find someone who can beat Obama.
 
The one in whcih you can receive nothing more than emergency care if you don't have insurance, government assistance or can't afford to pay the doctor up front?

MA has universal healthcare and there aren't enough doctors to handle the demand thus ER usage is way up as are costs. That however is what the people there wanted and that is why healthcare is a state issue not a federal issue.
 
Why does he need to? The GOP has yet to find someone who can beat Obama.

So you think when the field is narrowed down to two that the poll numbers will remain the same? Obama with the record he has doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell and will only get the ideologues like you voting for him. Not sure what you see in the guy but to each their own. I see a leftwing incompetent who lacks even basic leadership skills. Seems the results give that description credibility.
 
Thank you for the prayers, millions of people who need medical treatment are getting it, that is a liberal strawman to expand control and power over the lives of others.
And millions more aren't. The fact is, in America, the greatest country on this planet, the only people who receieve adequate medical care beyond emergency room are those who either have insurance (which many of those unemployed you feign concern over don't), are eligible for government assistance (which you are against), or can afford it (which only a relative few can afford a major operation), or beg for the money for medical treatment to be donated. That leaves a gap of millions who may need healthcare but beyond any emergency care they may be eligilble for, will not receive it. Try geting chemotherapy from an emergency room.
 
So you think when the field is narrowed down to two that the poll numbers will remain the same? Obama with the record he has doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell and will only get the ideologues like you voting for him. Not sure what you see in the guy but to each their own. I see a leftwing incompetent who lacks even basic leadership skills. Seems the results give that description credibility.

It all depends on who the opponent is for Obama. In the end, the GOP simply cannot run a generic faceless and nameless blob on the ballot in a referendum which boils down to "do you like Obama?" As much as you would like that to happen, that is simply not the way presidential elections work.

The GOP will have a real flesh and blood candidate whose own record, whose own beliefs, whose own statements, whose own ideas will become just as big of an issue as anything else in the campaign. And it is that reality which you seem to be shrinking from.
 
It is pretty hard to be extremely productive when your heart has an ejection fraction of 10%.

Normal is 58%

oh and this through no fault of my own. Mine is a congenital defect with a grim prognosis.
I wish you well also. It's one of the things that makes me a Liberal. I don't subscribe to the Conservative, "pull yourself up by your bootstraps," nonsense. I realize not everybody can. And living in a country which gave the people a Constitution which instructs the government to provide for the general welfare of this nation, people who can't shouldn't face dire life & death consequnces as a result.
 
And millions more aren't. The fact is, in America, the greatest country on this planet, the only people who receieve adequate medical care beyond emergency room are those who either have insurance (which many of those unemployed you feign concern over don't), are eligible for government assistance (which you are against), or can afford it (which only a relative few can afford a major operation), or beg for the money for medical treatment to be donated. That leaves a gap of millions who may need healthcare but beyond any emergency care they may be eligilble for, will not receive it. Try geting chemotherapy from an emergency room.

One has to be pretty god damn bad off to get full disability straight off the bat and no appeals.
 
MA has universal healthcare and there aren't enough doctors to handle the demand thus ER usage is way up as are costs. That however is what the people there wanted and that is why healthcare is a state issue not a federal issue.
I disagree. I see it as a federal issue falling under the general welfare clause.


Article I.

Section. 8.

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;​
 
So you think when the field is narrowed down to two that the poll numbers will remain the same?
For the most part. You seem to think that people who would vote for Perry over Obama actually pick Obama because they are also asked about other candidates.
 
It all depends on who the opponent is for Obama. In the end, the GOP simply cannot run a generic faceless and nameless blob on the ballot in a referendum which boils down to "do you like Obama?" As much as you would like that to happen, that is simply not the way presidential elections work.

The GOP will have a real flesh and blood candidate whose own record, whose own beliefs, whose own statements, whose own ideas will become just as big of an issue as anything else in the campaign. And it is that reality which you seem to be shrinking from.

Keep believing the liberal rhetoric and ignoring the liberal results. We have had 2 1/2 years of Obamanomics and the people aren't buying it. Either Romney or Perry can beat Obama and will. You didn't vet Obama and bought what he was saying. Now he has a record to run on and it isn't pretty. The American people were fooled once but won't be fooled a second time.
 
For the most part. You seem to think that people who would vote for Perry over Obama actually pick Obama because they are also asked about other candidates.

Republican candidates for others will drop out and the support redistributed. Perry will get the Bachmann vote as well as the Cain vote. When the Republlicans nominate a candidate it will be that candidate against the Obama record and that is what will turn the table on Obama. Only the true ideologues like you will continue to buy the Obama rhetoric
 
It all depends on who the opponent is for Obama. In the end, the GOP simply cannot run a generic faceless and nameless blob on the ballot in a referendum which boils down to "do you like Obama?" As much as you would like that to happen, that is simply not the way presidential elections work.

The GOP will have a real flesh and blood candidate whose own record, whose own beliefs, whose own statements, whose own ideas will become just as big of an issue as anything else in the campaign. And it is that reality which you seem to be shrinking from.
They put up a moderate Republican in 2008 and got their shirt handed to them. This time, it looks like they're going to go far right with Perry. While that will appeal to the right , they will lose the middle which they boast Obama has lost.
 
Keep believing the liberal rhetoric and ignoring the liberal results. We have had 2 1/2 years of Obamanomics and the people aren't buying it. Either Romney or Perry can beat Obama and will. You didn't vet Obama and bought what he was saying. Now he has a record to run on and it isn't pretty. The American people were fooled once but won't be fooled a second time.

Romney has a chance... IF ...... - Perry will be quickly exposed for the extremist that he is and will go nowhere. The major problem with Romney is that he has to go through Right Wing Whacko World to get nominated and that is stacked against him.
 
They put up a moderate Republican in 2008 and got their shirt handed to them. This time, it looks like they're going to go far right with Perry. While that will appeal to the right , they will lose the middle which they boast Obama has lost.

Obama has already lost the independent and has no policy to get them back. Doesn't matter who the Republicans nominate as the Obama record is there for all to see, it is a disaster
 
Republican candidates for others will drop out and the support redistributed. Perry will get the Bachmann vote as well as the Cain vote.
What you don't understand is that the head-to-head polls are not mutually inclusive. People polled are not limited to one choice, which as you claim, they will switch to whomever gets the nod from the GOP. In these polls, they can pick every GOPer if they so choose. So no, I don't see narrowing the field to one candidate having much impact on those polls. It might to some degree pick someone they hadn't considered previously, thanks to the herd mentality, but I don't see that being enough to overcome the current numbers. It's my opinion the biggest factor which will move those numbers is that some of the candidates are not all that well known, which will change when there's one candidate. But even that can work against them as much as it can help them. Remains to be seen.
 
They put up a moderate Republican in 2008 and got their shirt handed to them. This time, it looks like they're going to go far right with Perry. While that will appeal to the right , they will lose the middle which they boast Obama has lost.

Well they will go far right with somebody..... that looks like what is in the cards for them. It is pretty obvious that the establishment GOP has made a deal with the devil and the devil is demanding a very high price. The GOP will nominate a far rightie and the nation will reject them as too extreme. Right now, there is a 50/50 chance that it could be Goldwater 64 all over again for the Republicans if they fail to tame the tea party tiger they have been riding. And I see no way they can do that.

Its a pretty blunt commentary on just how extremist the Republican Party has gotten in the last few years when somebody such as Bachmann or a governor who openly talks about secession can be considered as a possible frontrunner.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom