• 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!

America's Fed Up: Obama Approval Rating Hits All-Time Low, Poll Shows [W:256]

Ugh!! The logical fallacies libs commit hurt my head.
 
Despite the fact Bush went out at 22%, which one might think would cause conservatives to never bring up presidential job approval ratings right now. Obama is going to be criticised for being at 40%, lol.
 
j-mac said:
Many as in who? For instance, who in this thread was the first to bring up Bush? I don't know, I am asking?
Click to expand...

The links correct the perception and did so by pointing out that the numbers used included Bush. Conservative disputed it.
 
Conservative said:
Well congratulations, when you have record deficits and record spending I find it interesting that you trumpet that. If you have a high base you better have low percentage growth unless of course you build your entire argument on percentage change. By your standards the 1.7 trillion dollar debt Reagan generated was much worse than the 7 trillion Obama has added because it was a higher percentage change. Is that liberal logic?

Yes, Obama took office in January but according to you the entire deficit or most of it was due to Bush's three months in office. That is a lie and a distortion. Shame on you
Click to expand...

No where did I say that. I claimed you don't see the entire picture and exaggerate Obama's role. Pay attention.
 
Conservative said:
To add, the last Bush budget which was never passed or signed was for 3 trillion dollars. Please name for me the budget that Obama proposed or signed for 3 trillion dollars. His last budget was for 3.9 trillion. Please explain how proposing that amount of spending shows fiscal responsibility? You don't seem to comprehend the data at all. It isn't percentage change that we pay debt service on, it is the actual debt. Obama inherited a 10.6 trillion dollar debt that is now over 17.6 trillion. Any idea what the debt service is on 7 trillion dollars?

Percentage change means nothing, actual spending does and "your" President is a fiscal disaster which of course you don't understand. Still waiting for you to teach me something other than Partisan BS
Click to expand...

Please link that.
 
Fenton said:
Huh ?

Excuses ? No, it actually happened.

Obama's signature is on 9 out of the 12 spending appropriation bills of FY 2009.
Click to expand...

I've provided the facts. Read.
 
Boo Radley said:
No where did I say that. I claimed you don't see the entire picture and exaggerate Obama's role. Pay attention.
Click to expand...

I really am trying to pay attention but you just cannot seem to keep it. You keep posting percentage change and that really is irrelevant. The last Bush budget proposal which was never passed or signed was for 3 trillion dollars. The last Budget proposal from Obama was 3.9 trillion dollars. Now why would you support anyone who proposed spending 900 billion more than he inherited simply because it is 30% increase in 6 years? Seems that it is you that doesn't see the entire picture. Name for me just one Obama economic and foreign policy success during his term in office?
 
Conservative said:
To add, the last Bush budget which was never passed or signed was for 3 trillion dollars. Please name for me the budget that Obama proposed or signed for 3 trillion dollars. His last budget was for 3.9 trillion. Please explain how proposing that amount of spending shows fiscal responsibility? You don't seem to comprehend the data at all. It isn't percentage change that we pay debt service on, it is the actual debt. Obama inherited a 10.6 trillion dollar debt that is now over 17.6 trillion. Any idea what the debt service is on 7 trillion dollars?

Percentage change means nothing, actual spending does and "your" President is a fiscal disaster which of course you don't understand. Still waiting for you to teach me something other than Partisan BS
Click to expand...



That is far too logical and realistic.

Please stop.
 
Boo Radley said:
Please link that.
Click to expand...

Why? You don't pay any attention to links. One more time

Obama submits 3.9 trillion dollar budget

Obama sends $3.9 trillion budget proposal to Congress - The Washington Post

Fiscal year 2009 budget signed in March 2009 by Obama

2009 United States federal budget - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Bush Budget submitted in February 2008

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/04/washington/04cnd-budget.html?_r=0

Debt Obama inherited. All you have to do is put in January 21, 2009 in the link

Debt to the Penny (Daily History Search Application)

You can get debt service by going to the budget of the United States

When will I start learning something accurate from you?
 
Montecresto said:
Despite the fact Bush went out at 22%, which one might think would cause conservatives to never bring up presidential job approval ratings right now. Obama is going to be criticised for being at 40%, lol.
Click to expand...



Only those obsessed with what the previous administration did.

Why would Bush's approval rating have anything to do with Obama's actual performance?

When we have criticized him for his policies, the progressives responded with "he has a 60% approval rating" as that somehow justifies letting terrorists get away with killing an ambassador.

Now that Obama has tumbled from his media enhanced throne and entering the 30 percentile range, it's "so what?"..he's still more popular than Bush....

What is it that all things Obama are measured against the backdrop of Bush, who you guys have claimed is the worst president ever? I would think one would want to compare Obama's record with great presidents. However, I suspect the progressives can't do that since Barack Obama, the man that promised more than any other president is going to come up looking very average against even the very average presidents......Carter always comes to mind.

Personally, I see nothing but nonsense in looking back to the past, it's what's happening now that counts and in America it has been getting worse at least since Obama, and that's where "progressives need to focus, not on the past...which, really, has about as much to do with progressing as does herpes in polite conversation.

Then again, the American progressive movement hasn't had a new idea in 11 decades
 
Fearandloathing said:
Only those obsessed with what the previous administration did.

Why would Bush's approval rating have anything to do with Obama's actual performance?

When we have criticized him for his policies, the progressives responded with "he has a 60% approval rating" as that somehow justifies letting terrorists get away with killing an ambassador.

Now that Obama has tumbled from his media enhanced throne and entering the 30 percentile range, it's "so what?"..he's still more popular than Bush....

What is it that all things Obama are measured against the backdrop of Bush, who you guys have claimed is the worst president ever? I would think one would want to compare Obama's record with great presidents. However, I suspect the progressives can't do that since Barack Obama, the man that promised more than any other president is going to come up looking very average against even the very average presidents......Carter always comes to mind.

Personally, I see nothing but nonsense in looking back to the past, it's what's happening now that counts and in America it has been getting worse at least since Obama, and that's where "progressives need to focus, not on the past...which, really, has about as much to do with progressing as does herpes in polite conversation.

Then again, the American progressive movement hasn't had a new idea in 11 decades
Click to expand...

Well, My post isn't meant as a cover or support for Obama, that may be what a partisan lefty might point it out for. I agree with you about Benghazi, and have probably been equal with you or more so critical of Obama's foreign policy. It just seems awkward to me for the right to be penning a thread on Obama's 40% approval rating considering Bush bombed out at 22%. Which was probably his totally color blind base.

And what is this criticism about the Obama/Bush comparisons when you just told another poster that his Bush/Obama comparison was too logical?!?!

Apparently only when the Bush/Obama comparisons leave Bush looking good are they acceptable, but the reverse shouldn't be pointed out. Its freaking crazy for the right to be mocking Obama's 40% approval rating, considering where Bush was when he slinked away from Washington.
 
Last edited:
Montecresto said:
Well, My post isn't meant as a cover or support for Obama, that may be what a partisan lefty might point it out for. I agree with you about Benghazi, and have probably been equal with you or more so critical of Obama's foreign policy. It just seems awkward to me for the right to be penning a thread on Obama's 40% approval rating considering Bush bombed out at 22%. Which was probably his totally color blind base.

And what is this criticism about the Obama/Bush comparisons when you just told another poster that his Bush/Obama comparison was too logical?!?!
Click to expand...



It's a freaking obsession....

And if you mean me as a partisan lefty......
 
What difference does it make what Obama's approval rating is?

He will never run for another election again.

So why should he give a **** where he is in the polls?

I could care less what Obama's approval rating is.

He is a sh!tty POTUS (just as GW Bush was a sh!tty POTUS). That is all I care about in this regard.
 
Fearandloathing said:
It's a freaking obsession....

And if you mean me as a partisan lefty......
Click to expand...

Lol, then the obsession is on the left and right. And another lol, of course I didn't mean you as a partisan lefty, don't know how you would read what I posted in that fashion, further, your posting habits would display more of a partisan on the right.
 
Montecresto said:
Well, My post isn't meant as a cover or support for Obama, that may be what a partisan lefty might point it out for. I agree with you about Benghazi, and have probably been equal with you or more so critical of Obama's foreign policy. It just seems awkward to me for the right to be penning a thread on Obama's 40% approval rating considering Bush bombed out at 22%. Which was probably his totally color blind base.

And what is this criticism about the Obama/Bush comparisons when you just told another poster that his Bush/Obama comparison was too logical?!?!

Apparently only when the Bush/Obama comparisons leave Bush looking good are they acceptable, but the reverse shouldn't be pointed out. Its freaking crazy for the right to be mocking Obama's 40% approval rating, considering where Bush was when he slinked away from Washington.
Click to expand...



I reviewed the OP and much of the thread...

I don't see where there is a direct comparison to Bush in the OP

We constantly hear in here how Obama is doing such a great job from the progressive members. How when we say that the polls are against him, we are just not taking our information from the right sources, or we don't know how to read the polls....Well, here is a poll from NBC for God's sake....In all areas it seems that American's of ALL stripes are just fed up with this liar in office....
Click to expand...


Merely stating what most of this thread supports, is that the progressives have drank from the polling numbers well for five and a half years,. and now that that support is sliding, as was predicted by one person at least, me, shortly after the last election, and continued through the stupid pride based dick wagging with congress.

While the Obama-as-hero gang has insisted there is "nothing to" the criticisms I and others have been raising, his numbers are tumbling. With now weeks before the mid terms, they rabidly cling to the claim Obama will regain majorities in both houses, that there is no error in his administration or policies, their only response when confronted with the cold truth of polling results lagging, is to say, as you do, "what about Bush?"

Again, it's about what's happening now and in the near future...as in mid terms, as in the last gasp of the Obama administration in which he may even face Bush's low numbers. Let's face it, if he loses congress to the people he called "enemies" and has been bashing for six years, what chances do you think are they going to let him use the White House toilet?

can you see some "executive branch" cost cutting which he will have to veto?

Hey, the crap has only begun to flow backward.....I suspect there's some "traitors and terrorists" who would like some pay back.....and they are going to get it.
 
DA60 said:
What difference does it make what Obama's approval rating is?

He will never run for another election again.

So why should he give a **** where he is in the polls?

I could care less what Obama's approval rating is.

He is a sh!tty POTUS (just as GW Bush was a sh!tty POTUS). That is all I care about in this regard.
Click to expand...

Well, I'll certainly agree with you about the bolded, however, for ones legacy, and bragging rights at the presidential library, I would think a POTUS would prefer to hang Clintons exiting job approval rating on the wall as opposed to GWBush's.
 
Montecresto said:
Well, I'll certainly agree with you about the bolded, however, for ones legacy, and bragging rights at the presidential library, I would think a POTUS would prefer to hang Clintons exiting job approval rating on the wall as opposed to GWBush's.
Click to expand...

You are probably right.

I think after the November elections, the number one word on Obama's mind will be 'legacy'.
 
Montecresto said:
Lol, then the obsession is on the left and right. And another lol, of course I didn't mean you as a partisan lefty, don't know how you would read what I posted in that fashion, further, your posting habits would display more of a partisan on the right.
Click to expand...




Ahem...with the deepest respect,

"your posting habits would display more of a partisan on the right." ...BECAUSE the left is in power. THEY set policy, what the opposition in this administration has been allowed to contribute is words...period.

Words do not cost lives, run up the deficit, cost people their homes...they are words.

The left has been making ALL of those decisions since mid February 2009.

Trust me, if and when the Republican party can get over itself, stop circling the wagons and shooting inward, agree on a real candidate and actually win the pot of gold, the Republican friends I have now will be much, much fewer in number.

If you think what I have to say now is rough on Obama, perhaps is you were to read what I wrote about ****ing Nixon, Reagan at the time, and Bush Sr., you might lose this idea I'm a Teabagger or something
 
Fearandloathing said:
I reviewed the OP and much of the thread...

I don't see where there is a direct comparison to Bush in the OP




Merely stating what most of this thread supports, is that the progressives have drank from the polling numbers well for five and a half years,. and now that that support is sliding, as was predicted by one person at least, me, shortly after the last election, and continued through the stupid pride based dick wagging with congress.

While the Obama-as-hero gang has insisted there is "nothing to" the criticisms I and others have been raising, his numbers are tumbling. With now weeks before the mid terms, they rabidly cling to the claim Obama will regain majorities in both houses, that there is no error in his administration or policies, their only response when confronted with the cold truth of polling results lagging, is to say, as you do, "what about Bush?"

Again, it's about what's happening now and in the near future...as in mid terms, as in the last gasp of the Obama administration in which he may even face Bush's low numbers. Let's face it, if he loses congress to the people he called "enemies" and has been bashing for six years, what chances do you think are they going to let him use the White House toilet?

can you see some "executive branch" cost cutting which he will have to veto?

Hey, the crap has only begun to flow backward.....I suspect there's some "traitors and terrorists" who would like some pay back.....and they are going to get it.
Click to expand...

Well again, I don't carry water for Obama, his approval rating started to slide with me while he was yet candidate Obama, when he declared that as president, he would attack al Qaeda in Pakistan, with or without the Pakistani governments permission, and he did keep true to that promise, but I viewed/view it as more belligerence, something I was hoping we might be getting away from after Bush.

Also, I wasn't referring to the op specifically, but throughout this board, righties will compare Bush with Obama when it makes Bush look good, and lefties will compare Obama to Bush when it makes Obama look good. It's the way that partisans roll.
 
Montecresto said:
Well again, I don't carry water for Obama, his approval rating started to slide with me while he was yet candidate Obama, when he declared that as president, he would attack al Qaeda in Pakistan, with or without the Pakistani governments permission, and he did keep true to that promise, but I viewed/view it as more belligerence, something I was hoping we might be getting away from after Bush.

Also, I wasn't referring to the op specifically, but throughout this board, righties will compare Bush with Obama when it makes Bush look good, and lefties will compare Obama to Bush when it makes Obama look good. It's the way that partisans roll.
Click to expand...

If there is one partnership I will never understand is the u.s cooperating with the Nation of Pakistan. I would not be surprised that our problems in Afghanistan were the result of Pakistans involvement.
 
Fearandloathing said:
Ahem...with the deepest respect,

"your posting habits would display more of a partisan on the right." ...BECAUSE the left is in power. THEY set policy, what the opposition in this administration has been allowed to contribute is words...period.

Words do not cost lives, run up the deficit, cost people their homes...they are words.

The left has been making ALL of those decisions since mid February 2009.

Trust me, if and when the Republican party can get over itself, stop circling the wagons and shooting inward, agree on a real candidate and actually win the pot of gold, the Republican friends I have now will be much, much fewer in number.

If you think what I have to say now is rough on Obama, perhaps is you were to read what I wrote about ****ing Nixon, Reagan at the time, and Bush Sr., you might lose this idea I'm a Teabagger or something
Click to expand...

Well I certainly didn't mean any Offense to you sir. But from my reading of your positions on the various issues here, I would put you in the right wing, not necessarily "Teabagger or something" position. And in fairness, though I haven't seen anything you've posted on Reagan, Nixon and 41. If you have criticised them on issues in which they were wrong, and if you have praised Clinton and Obama on issues where they have been right, then I'll put you in the objective category, and not in the partisan.
 
Conservative said:
I really am trying to pay attention but you just cannot seem to keep it. You keep posting percentage change and that really is irrelevant. The last Bush budget proposal which was never passed or signed was for 3 trillion dollars. The last Budget proposal from Obama was 3.9 trillion dollars. Now why would you support anyone who proposed spending 900 billion more than he inherited simply because it is 30% increase in 6 years? Seems that it is you that doesn't see the entire picture. Name for me just one Obama economic and foreign policy success during his term in office?
Click to expand...

No, it's not irrelevant. You just don't like the facts.
 
Unitedwestand13 said:
If there is one partnership I will never understand is the u.s cooperating with the Nation of Pakistan. I would not be surprised that our problems in Afghanistan were the result of Pakistans involvement.
Click to expand...

Well, there probably is some truth to that, it is a strange one, and we let them have nukes!! However, we worked with them during the Reagan administration. While we were supplying shoulder mounted SAM's to the Mujahideen, the Pakistanis were supplying the directive and training and mostly running the Russian (USSR) opposition.
 
Conservative said:
Why? You don't pay any attention to links. One more time

Obama submits 3.9 trillion dollar budget

Obama sends $3.9 trillion budget proposal to Congress - The Washington Post

Fiscal year 2009 budget signed in March 2009 by Obama

2009 United States federal budget - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Bush Budget submitted in February 2008

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/04/washington/04cnd-budget.html?_r=0

Debt Obama inherited. All you have to do is put in January 21, 2009 in the link

Debt to the Penny (Daily History Search Application)

You can get debt service by going to the budget of the United States

When will I start learning something accurate from you?
Click to expand...

From your link, in reference to the Bush budget he sized: . . . its record size . . .

More:

That $1.2 trillion projected deficit — the result of bills signed by Republican President George W. Bush — grew substantially after Obama signed his stimulus bill and submitted his own budget. But even so, by the time the fiscal year ended Sept. 30, the actual deficit was $1.4 trillion, CBO said.

(snip)

. Bush’s lowest annual deficit was just under $158 billion in fiscal 2002. It reached nearly $459 billion in the fiscal year ending Sept. 30, 2008, and, as we mentioned, was on track to reach $1.2 trillion by the time Obama took office.

A Texas-size Whopper
 
Boo Radley said:
No, it's not irrelevant. You just don't like the facts.
Click to expand...

And what exact facts would that be? I am waiting for facts but you post opinions and pass them off as fact. The Treasury, BEA.gov, BLS.gov, and Census provides facts. You wanted links, I gave them to you but as I thought that was a waste of time
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom