• 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!

Why is The Obama’s administration in trouble?

Why is The Obama’s administration in trouble?


  • Total voters
    28
Most of the silly political theories that pundits cook up on cable TV are retarded. They need to fill air time. Obama's falling popularity can be attributed to one thing: Unemployment remains high. Perhaps when he's actually on the ballot in two years, that will have changed. Or perhaps not. Whatever.

Do you really think the average American believes, or gives a rat's ass about, stupid **** like "The Obama doesn’t believe in American greatness"? And that THAT is the cause of falling approval numbers? You, sir, are a moron.
 
Last edited:
So, you can't refute the specific factual claims and conclusion that he reaches with them. Roger.

Do you then believe that:

-The president’s approval ratings have NOT been sliding dramatically all summer?
-The latest Rasmussen Daily Presidential Tracking Poll of US voters does NOT show The Obama dropping to minus 22 points?
-This is NOT the lowest point so far for Barack Obama since taking office?
-That, while just 24 per cent of American voters strongly approve of the president’s job performance, almost twice that number, 46 per cent, do NOT strongly disapprove?
-That 65 per cent of voters do NOT believe the United States is going down the wrong track, including 70 per cent of independents?

Do you have anything to back up any of these beliefs?

You can whine about the partisan point of view of the author, but that he may be partisan in no way makes him wrong -- and if you cannot show how he is wrong, either in the fsacts that he uses to support his conclusion of the conclusion itsels, all you're doing is whining.

This is almost a perfect example of what a straw man is. In no way did you actually address what Hoplite said. You just continued your hysterical anti-Obama rant.
 
This is almost a perfect example of what a straw man is. In no way did you actually address what Hoplite said. You just continued your hysterical anti-Obama rant.
You are so -very- obvioualy wrong.

Hoplite dismissed the article as a partisan rant, with no argument to respond to.
By speciflying the argument made withing the artiucle, I not only directly addressed what he said, I unquestionably refuted it.

I -then- challnged -him- to refute the argument made in the article by asking him if he beleived that the facts stated in the article were not true, and then asked him to support those beliefs.

So, you can contiue to defend Hoplite, attack me, and ignore the issue presented here, or you can actually address the substance of OP:

Do you agree with the stated reasons for The Obama's decline in approval? Why/Why not?
If not, then how do you explain it?
 
You are so -very- obvioualy wrong.

Hoplite dismissed the article as a partisan rant, with no argument to respond to.
By speciflying the argument made withing the artiucle, I not only directly addressed what he said, I unquestionably refuted it.

I -then- challnged -him- to refute the argument made in the article by asking him if he beleived that the facts stated in the article were not true, and then asked him to support those beliefs.

So, you can contiue to defend Hoplite, attack me, and ignore the issue presented here, or you can actually address the substance of OP:

Do you agree with the stated reasons for The Obama's decline in approval? Why/Why not?
If not, then how do you explain it?

You conveniently did not quote his whole post, and did not address his actual comments.

Do you ever wonder why all your threads spiral down like this?
 
You conveniently did not quote his whole post, and did not address his actual comments.
As I said:
You can contiue to defend Hoplite, attack me, and ignore the issue presented here, or you can actually address the substance of OP.

Do you ever wonder why all your threads spiral down like this?
Clearly, the blame for that belongs to the self-evident incapability of those that disagree with the point being made to actually address said point, forcing them to attack the poeter or the author, as necessary, to deflect attention from that point.

This speaks poorly not of me or the author, as necessary, but of those that disagree with the point
Your actions here only reinforce the validity of this position.

Do you agree with the stated reasons for The Obama's decline in approval? Why/Why not?
If not, then how do you explain it?
 
So, you can't refute the specific factual claims and conclusion that he reaches with them. Roger.

Do you then believe that:

-The president’s approval ratings have NOT been sliding dramatically all summer?
-The latest Rasmussen Daily Presidential Tracking Poll of US voters does NOT show The Obama dropping to minus 22 points?
-This is NOT the lowest point so far for Barack Obama since taking office?
-That, while just 24 per cent of American voters strongly approve of the president’s job performance, almost twice that number, 46 per cent, do NOT strongly disapprove?
-That 65 per cent of voters do NOT believe the United States is going down the wrong track, including 70 per cent of independents?

Do you have anything to back up any of these beliefs?

You can whine about the partisan point of view of the author, but that he may be partisan in no way makes him wrong -- and if you cannot show how he is wrong, either in the fsacts that he uses to support his conclusion of the conclusion itsels, all you're doing is whining.
POPs are pretty irrelevant anyways and the evaluation of laymen isnt exactly damming.

There isnt any argument there beyond "He isnt doing well in the polls." Which, while true, is pretty irrelevant. The rest is just pointless ranting.
 
Clearly, the blame for that belongs to the self-evident incapability of those that disagree with the point being made to actually address said point, forcing them to attack the poeter or the author, as necessary, to deflect attention from that point.

This speaks poorly not of me or the author, as necessary, but of those that disagree with the point
Your actions here only reinforce the validity of this position.

Do you agree with the stated reasons for The Obama's decline in approval? Why/Why not?
If not, then how do you explain it?

Yes, clearly it is every one elses fault, not your own . It's the fault of others that you posted a poll with a conclusion that many won't agree with, and poll options that are nothing more than propaganda. I can't imagine why people won't answer your propaganda.
 
Since you didn't offer a 'none of the above' or 'his administration isn't in trouble' option, I can't really answer your poll.
 
Why is The Obama’s administration in trouble?

See:
The stunning decline of Barack Obama: 10 key reasons why the Obama presidency is in meltdown – Telegraph Blogs

The article gives 10 reasons for The Obama’s worsening popularity among the American people and all of the political woes that follow such a thing.

Which of these items to you believe are the cause behind The Obama’s rising unpopularity? Why?
Do none of these explain his decline? If not, then what does?
Are there others that should be added to the list?

WOW! What Gibberish from a Right Wing British newspaper. And written by a guy from the Heritage foundation.

Nile Gardiner, Ph.D. | The Heritage Foundation
 
Do you really think the average American believes, or gives a rat's ass about, stupid **** like "The Obama doesn’t believe in American greatness"? And that THAT is the cause of falling approval numbers? You, sir, are a moron.

He never stated he believed it. Actually, all of those reasons were from the article. He's asking if you agree with them. You sir, should not cast the first stone whenst thou knowest least.

Sure he probably does believe it, and I would say that at least some of those are legitimate reasons. I know a lot of them hit on why I don't like his politics.
 
Last edited:
Two reasons:

He has had to make tough economic decisions which are always unpopular, not that he has yet mustered the balls for some austerity measures that the US desperately needs.

Secondly, socialized medicine.
 
Yes, clearly it is every one elses fault, not your own.
As I said -- you, yourself, are simply reinforcing the validity of my statement -- even in this very post.

Now, rather than try to turn the discussion towards me and away from something you know you canout substantively counter, maybe you'd care to actually address the issue at hand:
Do you agree with any of the stated reasons for The Obama's decline in approval? Why/Why not?
If not, then how do you explain it?
 
There isnt any argument there beyond "He isnt doing well in the polls."
Ah.... so you admit that your previous statement was wrong, and that there IS an argument in the piece.

Good.

Do you agree with the stated reasons for The Obama's decline in approval? Why/Why not?
If not, then how do -you- explain it?
 
Ah.... so you admit that your previous statement was wrong, and that there IS an argument in the piece.

Good.

Do you agree with the stated reasons for The Obama's decline in approval? Why/Why not?
If not, then how do -you- explain it?
Again, I dont consider POPs and evaluations of world geopolitics by average Joe as valid.
 
Since you didn't offer a 'none of the above'....
Well, if you read the piece, you'll see there were 10 points given. The poll system only allows 10 options, so I was unable to provide a 'none/all of the above'.

I did, however, include in the OP:

Do none of these explain his decline? If not, then what does?
Are there others that should be added to the list?
This allows -you- to fill in the blanks, should you believe that none of the above explain said decline.

So... since you apparently believe that 'none of the above' explain the decline of The Obama's popularity/spproval/public confidence numbers, what then does?
What, in your opion, should be added to the list in place of the options given?

or 'his administration isn't in trouble' option, I can't really answer your poll.
You do not believe The Obama's administration is in political trouble?
The article in the OP makes a substantive case that it is - can you substantively explain how is the author wrong?

If not, then your response here is an attempt to dodge having to asnwer the poll - which, of course, you could have more easily done simply by not responding.
 
WOW! What Gibberish from a Right Wing British newspaper. And written by a guy from the Heritage foundation.
Feel free to try substantively counter his argument that The Obama's numbers are in decline, denoting that He is in politcal trouble..

Of course, if you agree that the above is true and that you only take issue with the reasons the author gives for that decline, you must then provide your own explanation for said decline.
 
Again, I dont consider POPs and evaluations of world geopolitics by average Joe as valid.
Given that you have yet to offer any substantive counteer to his argumewnt, all you're doing here is closing your eyes, holding your hands over your ears and yelling "I can't hear you!" as loud as you can.
 
The trend of Obama's approval ratings are par for the course historically

y0xHn.png


Thus far in his presidency his approval ratings have almost perfectly mirrored Reagan's

The reasons are the same as every other president. As the image of the candidate becomes the reality of the politician ratings slide.
 
Again, I dont consider POPs and evaluations of world geopolitics by average Joe as valid.

Why not? It is average Joe that votes for any given President, Congressman, etc etc. Obviously if they are considered valid enough to vote the people in that control this country then perhaps, maybe, what they say in some blog, newspaper, etc etc is valid also.
 
"What is with conservatives and Republicans calling him things like "The Obama" and "The Messiah"? The only people who are putting him on a pedestal are yourselves."

You

Mainly because of this here book and the image he used when he was campaigning.

SonofPromise.gif
 
Given that you have yet to offer any substantive counteer to his argumewnt, all you're doing here is closing your eyes, holding your hands over your ears and yelling "I can't hear you!" as loud as you can.
It's ranting. To try to refute someone who so obviously is deeply entrenched in his own side is like digging in the sand. Any argument I make to refute his ranting has been made and made a thousand times before.

Why not? It is average Joe that votes for any given President, Congressman, etc etc. Obviously if they are considered valid enough to vote the people in that control this country then perhaps, maybe, what they say in some blog, newspaper, etc etc is valid also.
I dont like POPs because of how they're deployed. A "random" sampling of people is taken and asked questions about an issue. They are easy to tip to the direction you want and dont account for the diversity that is the United States.

I dont like people's opinions of complex topics because most individuals have an overly-simplistic view of the world and how it works. Most people have a very binary view of things and expect politicians to share that view. Many politicians realize the world is not arraigned thusly into neat lines of black and white but still have to pretend that it is to be elected. People become dissatisfied when what they see as a solution isnt taken and most often without considering that there may be a fundamental point that they are missing and that point may be what prevents leadership from making that choice.

I believe very strongly in the ideals of democracy and I feel wholeheartedly that people should have a voice in how they live their lives. But I hesitate to put decisions in the hands of people who have no experience or education to make these decisions. It is the same hesitation I feel calling a barber in for a consult on a difficult brain surgery; the problem is far too delicate to simply thrust at people and expect them to reach a mature and educated decision at this point in our development. I believe that will change in the future, but for now I do not trust the average person to make rational decisions regarding politics.
 
I picked all of the above but, when you campaign heavily on change and you do exactly what the Bush administration does, then you are going to have some problems with the people who voted for you.
 
It's ranting. To try to refute someone who so obviously is deeply entrenched in his own side is like digging in the sand. Any argument I make to refute his ranting has been made and made a thousand times before.

I dont like POPs because of how they're deployed. A "random" sampling of people is taken and asked questions about an issue. They are easy to tip to the direction you want and dont account for the diversity that is the United States.

I dont like people's opinions of complex topics because most individuals have an overly-simplistic view of the world and how it works. Most people have a very binary view of things and expect politicians to share that view. Many politicians realize the world is not arraigned thusly into neat lines of black and white but still have to pretend that it is to be elected. People become dissatisfied when what they see as a solution isnt taken and most often without considering that there may be a fundamental point that they are missing and that point may be what prevents leadership from making that choice.

I believe very strongly in the ideals of democracy and I feel wholeheartedly that people should have a voice in how they live their lives. But I hesitate to put decisions in the hands of people who have no experience or education to make these decisions. It is the same hesitation I feel calling a barber in for a consult on a difficult brain surgery; the problem is far too delicate to simply thrust at people and expect them to reach a mature and educated decision at this point in our development. I believe that will change in the future, but for now I do not trust the average person to make rational decisions regarding politics.

So in essence if a person doesn't have a degree in a certain matter then their opinion is worthless in that matter?
 
So in essence if a person doesn't have a degree in a certain matter then their opinion is worthless in that matter?
Not necessarily. Im saying if someone has no experience with something, it'd be a bad idea to trust them with a decision or trust their opinion on it. It is possible to be a well-informed citizen without having a PHD.

Degrees are worthless anyways.
 
It's ranting...
The you shoud have no problem negating his argument. Get busy.
Oh wait... you already agreed that his argumenr is valid. I guess you;re out of luck.
As I said-- just because someone is partisan doesnt make him wrong.
And so, you yelling "I can't hear you" leaves the argument unchallenged.
 
Back
Top Bottom