Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
July polls: 66% of Americans view Obama favorably, Palin now at 40%
This discussion has been closed.
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Comments
Yes
Your an optimist. He can't even hold 66% of the UAW or the Teamsters unions.
I'd say they hate him, only despise would be a better word.
Obama did more to decrease UAW membership in 60 days then what the Republicans did in 8 years.
They never thought that hope and change were for unemployment benefits.
They voted for him, he sold them out for the big money boys on Wall Street.
There's no love lost here for him.
Yes
Your an optimist. He can't even hold 66% of the UAW or the Teamsters unions.
I'd say they hate him, only despise would be a better word.
Obama did more to decrease UAW membership in 60 days then what the Republicans did in 8 years.
They never thought that hope and change were for unemployment benefits.
They voted for him, he sold them out for the big money boys on Wall Street.
There's no love lost here for him.
I just think its funny. after all these years of Blasting and Blameing Trickle Down economics... We get a Trickle Down Baleout... Lmao
If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude; greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you; May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen.
Samuel Adams
The media lately has been airing bad press on Obama. Its been 6 months its about time. Also Fox news has been letting up on its complete negative coverage of Obama. So I don't think its a media thing. The fact is you cannot be a successful news agency if you are a government schill. ABC, NBC, and CBS have discovered this through dismal ratings since their Obama Love Campaign started.
I think polls are a pretty poor example of americans feelings. They don't measure polls in any means of accuracy anymore. They don't follow information on registered voters information to get a true view of demographics, and the pool is often very limited to get an actual perspective. Having a poll thats composed of 10k people is somehow considered accurate on the scale of 150 million registered voters. They also sway very easily. For a period Bush had a 95% approval rating. (To the person who said Al'queda was never implicated, they confessed to it through videos by their dear leaders. Their mistake for confessing to 9/11 just after it happened. Imagine if Pearl Harbor was bombed and Mexico was the first to say they did it.)
I also think Sarah Palin should campaign for Chris Dodd, I really hope he loses. That guy has been in office too long and has been at the center of most of the current economic problems. It will hurt Dodd's campaign with his constituents, but it might strengthen Republicans for Chriss Dodd.
Also could you imagine a McCain/Biden campaign. That would have been awesome. McCain doesn't lie, but he does leave out stuff. Biden never leaves out stuff. Also their combined experience makes them formidable. I always thought it should have been Biden at the top of the ticket for dems. Obama just has too bad of a legislature track record overseeing the economic problems in Illinios and on Congress over the last decade is a pretty bad record.
68% of people feel that 31% of the polls are wrong..but only 74% of the time.
Obama's ratings are going to go down after his remarks about the police. It's inevitable.
Like how Time magazine just did that "Most trusted man in news" or whatever, since Walter Cronkite died. There was another thread about it.. but anyway, I'm pretty sure the big voting tally racked in at a whopping 9,000 something voters. Hah, the nation's most trusted news person, right.
What other magazine did a "most influential person" poll online, and it was invaded by 4chan.. so the most influential was the dolt that co-founded 4chan... something along those lines.
Yeah, these polls don't mean squat, sorry. The polls only go as far as whatever the news wants to say they are, usually fraudulent or fabricated.. or both, to sweep through an agenda or cover up a special interest embarrassment.
I think McCain really wanted a McCain/Lieberman ticket. The problem was, that like Mitt Romney, Lieberman wasn't "Conservative" enough, or "Christian" enough for the base.
McCain/Lieberman would have been an interesting ticket........I do think the occupant of the White House might have been different.
This just in: Nobody gives a fuck, because they hear this bullshit on the news every day. No offense.
This is a sequence of characters intended to produce some profound mental effect, but it has failed.
Yes
I agree.
I think most Americans are smart enough to realize where all this downturn originated. Obama didn't cause all of this job loss as he stated. It was inherited from Bush and everyone knows it. The difference is most people are pretty sane and actually admit that, that's why people LIKE Obama as this poll shows.
Some of you are under the delusion this is a job approval poll. It isn't. His job approval numbers are lower by about 10% or so (fluctuates depending on the poll). But most Americans LIKE Obama by a 66% clip. They don't blame him for the two wars, recession, housing bubble burst or lost jobs. They rightly know where that belongs. I simply have no idea why some of you keep throwing personal hate at posters when they post accurate numbers, regardless if you don't like them or not.
Regarding Palin, I tried to give the "good" news by saying 40% of Americans like Palin. The bad news?
53% do NOT like Palin. That's the fact, jack.
"TO MICHAEL!"
This is pretty fanciful.
Chris Dodd is a Democrat and regardless of what Palin says in "support" of Dodd, no Democratic voter would believe it. Independants would know it a ploy to try and submarine him and by that time, she'd be largely irrelevant anyways.
She might as well campaign for Obama the next time around for all the good it would do her.
"TO MICHAEL!"
I can counter you by what liberals/democrats are saying... "give him time".
The general public won't be fooled by all the bush this cheney that forever. You can only use that excuse for so long. Remember folks, Democrats have had control of the Congress for 3 years now. This isn't something that Dems all of a sudden just inherited like they try to bs you.
EQ1-AC1-DAOC-FFXI-L2-EQ2-WoW-DDO-GW-LoTR-VG-WAR-GW2-ESO
Anything the Democratic congress could pass, Bush could veto so that means nothing really. That's always been a pretty weak point over the Bush years.
Again, most Americans haven't lost their jobs. The vast majority are still working, still taking vacations and still doing other things that require money. They only felt the recession slightly. Sure they may carpool a little more, but most aren't hurting. It is within this block of Americans that Obama maintains a pretty good opinion. Anyway you slice it, if he was at only 50% approval, that would mean that every other person you met liked Obama, while the other didn't. That's still pretty good odds for most things and can win you an election easily. Now, he's up to 66% even DURING all this Bush leftovers.
The vast majority of Americans see other things other than "Hey, there's a trillions dollar deficit you haven't fixed yet Obama!" Most see the stock market back up around 9,000 and understand what that means. They also know he's only been in office six months. They aren't as impatient as the 10 year olds watching and broadcasting Fox News.
They are adults and have common sense.
"TO MICHAEL!"
While some would like to believe this, Obama has already flipped this to his advantage. It's almost as if he knew what would happen, which if you had watched his press conference you wonder if he didn't do this on purpose. The woman reporter had asked him about the Cambridge incident as the VERY LAST QUESTION in the conference. No one else asked about it during the whole time.
Right before he answered, you could tell he wasn't uncomfortable about it at all. He said that Gates was a PERSONAL friend of his and then said he thought the police acted "stupidly". Well, low and behold the media grabbed it and ran and looked what happened today.
He invited Gates and the cop to the White House for "a beer". LOL! You know what's going to happen? They both are going to get press pics and a big photo op of them all drinking beer and then Obama will get credit for defusing a big race issue... police and minorities. Then both the cop and Gates look good and Obama looks better.
This is how politics works. Obama knew exactly what he was doing by answering that question and saying what he said where any other politician would simply have said "no comment".
"TO MICHAEL!"
You have to be kidding me. The Bushies blamed Clinton for everything up to, including, and after 9/11 for years. Now, all of a sudden, Bush is gone and that's it, he's absolved of everything?
Everything that happened from 1992-2008 was the fault of Bill Clinton's dick, and apparently everything that's happened since Nov. 2008 is Obama's fault.
Anything the Democratic congress could pass, Bush could veto so that means nothing really. That's always been a pretty weak point over the Bush years.
Actually when Dems had control of the congress past few years, they had some of the lowest approval ratings around. If you could actually give some examples of "good" things they tried to pass in which Bush knocked down, then by all means go for it. But the D-controlled congress didn't get the "do nothing congress" nickname by trying and doing well. The fact of the matter is, they didn't do a whole lot, and they didn't even try.
If you ask me, I think they did nothing because they wanted to see GOP fall. It worked, so people have now voted a Democrat president in, along with more democrats into the congress. Fine, let's see what they can do. Just please, stop the Bush this Cheney that because Democrats have been running the show for quite some time now.
On the flip side, congress controls this nation's purse. You could say without approval of the Congress, Bush couldn't sign a bill or spend anything. So if people want to talk about the economy they "inherited from bush", look no further than your democrat controlled congress that has been in effect since 2006. The difference between you and me, popinjay, is that I try to say both parties are at fault. While you are trying to place all blame on the GOP, thinking the democrats are the best and everything is peachy.
EQ1-AC1-DAOC-FFXI-L2-EQ2-WoW-DDO-GW-LoTR-VG-WAR-GW2-ESO
100% Popinjay The only one Bringing Palin back in to this on the boards since she Quit.
If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude; greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you; May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen.
Samuel Adams
Yes
I agree.
I think most Americans are smart enough to realize where all this downturn originated. Obama didn't cause all of this job loss as he stated. It was inherited from Bush and everyone knows it. The difference is most people are pretty sane and actually admit that, that's why people LIKE Obama as this poll shows.
Some of you are under the delusion this is a job approval poll. It isn't. His job approval numbers are lower by about 10% or so (fluctuates depending on the poll). But most Americans LIKE Obama by a 66% clip. They don't blame him for the two wars, recession, housing bubble burst or lost jobs. They rightly know where that belongs. I simply have no idea why some of you keep throwing personal hate at posters when they post accurate numbers, regardless if you don't like them or not.
Regarding Palin, I tried to give the "good" news by saying 40% of Americans like Palin. The bad news?
53% do NOT like Palin. That's the fact, jack.
I do not throw personal hate at either posters, or Obama. This is like asking "Why do you hate America", only now it's Obama, and not Bush.
I live in Michigan, which has over a 15% unemployment rate, a leader in home foreclosures, bankruptcies, business failures. That's the numbers, though as to accuracy they don't reflect the number of people that have had their working hours cut to part time, or have been forced to take unpaid leaves of absence.
I'll give you a fact, the unemployment rate in Detroit is over 50%. Yea, that's right, over 50%. Chew on the stat for awhile, then tell me what Obama is doing about it.
Obama comes here, and gives pretty speeches, but that's all we see. Meanwhile the unemployment lines grow here, while the money grows on Wall Street. Be nice if we had the earnings, and the bonuses, that Wall Street is getting after 6 months of an Obama Presidency.
But that hope and change was never meant for the working class, was it?
Yea, the more things change, the more they stay the same.
The UAW and the Teamsters hate Obama for a reason.
Correct, Bush blamed Clinton, Obama blaming Bush, they'll keep doing that and never be accountable for what they're doing. They got us arguing between left and right, when the government as a whole is failing average Americans. I never claimed Bush didn't blame Clinton. But I'm right in that Democrats can only blame Bush for so long before people realize their bs.
Bush spent too much, any conservatives will tell you that. But how do you correc that problem by spending 3x more in 6 months?
EQ1-AC1-DAOC-FFXI-L2-EQ2-WoW-DDO-GW-LoTR-VG-WAR-GW2-ESO
Anything the Democratic congress could pass, Bush could veto so that means nothing really. That's always been a pretty weak point over the Bush years.
Actually when Dems had control of the congress past few years, they had some of the lowest approval ratings around. If you could actually give some examples of "good" things they tried to pass in which Bush knocked down, then by all means go for it. But the D-controlled congress didn't get the "do nothing congress" nickname by trying and doing well. The fact of the matter is, they didn't do a whole lot, and they didn't even try.
If you ask me, I think they did nothing because they wanted to see GOP fall. It worked, so people have now voted a Democrat president in, along with more democrats into the congress. Fine, let's see what they can do. Just please, stop the Bush this Cheney that because Democrats have been running the show for quite some time now.
On the flip side, congress controls this nation's purse. You could say without approval of the Congress, Bush couldn't sign a bill or spend anything. So if people want to talk about the economy they "inherited from bush", look no further than your democrat controlled congress that has been in effect since 2006. The difference between you and me, popinjay, is that I try to say both parties are at fault. While you are trying to place all blame on the GOP, thinking the democrats are the best and everything is peachy.
The dems approval ratings aren't issue. It's Obamas. The point about the dem's holding congress was true, but that had no bearing on Obama's presidency now. IF the dems don't get healthcare in before the next round of elections, they are going to have hell to pay. Even though the actual PLAN won't cover anyone for years to come (which no one understands) they still need to show that they pushed a plan through. This is why the Dems are pretty stupid to wait around for Republicans who are just stalling until the mid term elections, lol. The Republicans are just saying "NO" until the elections, then the Republicans will say the "do nothing Congress did nothing", which would have been true since they have the numbers. That MAY hurt Obama or it may just do what happened with Bush; people don't blame Bush right away they blame the Congress.
It was a conservative Republican in this thread who brought up "Bush Cheney and Clinton" if you recall. I said nothing so I'd think you'd want to remind them to stay on point, since the title is about Palin and Obama.
I don't blame all of this on the GOP, nope. I blame MOST of it because of the war, the relaxed regulations on corporations and the tax breaks for the rich who sheltered overseas anyways while moving jobs. Most Dems didn't do that. If Bush hadn't spend like a drunken sailor we would not have been in this situation. That isn't the Dems fault although they made mistakes to be certain.
"TO MICHAEL!"
I haven't seen you bashing posters oldaddy. I figured you'd know you weren't part of that. That's my mistake for tacking it in your reply. Sorry. I did not mean to say you as YOU, it was a general YOU to those who know they flame.
I'm sure you can read who's doing the bashing and namecalling as well as anyone and that it certainly doesn't apply to you. It's the same people who always do personal attacks.
"TO MICHAEL!"
You do it when all the economic experts you've called and talked to say that if you DON'T do that, the country will go into a Depression instead of a deep recession. People today have no idea how close we were to that precipice. Some even said today he didn't spend ENOUGH, this all when he hasn't even given out ALL of the money in the first place.
Obama didn't open new agencies, start wars, and throw around tax breaks and money. He spent it all on trying to stem the economy from crashing further.
"TO MICHAEL!"
I blame it on a mismanaged "bailout" of Wall Street at Main Street's expense.
Treasury cannot even tell us where the Wall Street "bailout" money went, both Democrats AND Republicans in Congress are upset about that. Geitner will get his reward from Wall Street when he leaves public service. He took care of his homeboys well.
Banks have record profits, credit card fees and interest is going up, Wall Street has record profits, each has record bonuses. All within 6 months of Obama taking office.
The FED is practically giving money away to banks to loan out, I have clients that are paying 12.5% interest on the FED's "free" money.
Biden didn't gaff, he spoke true.
I'm simply not as jaded about this whole "bailout". Firstly, because its LOANS. Not a handout. They have to repay it. When they repay it all, then what? If every bank that the government gave a loan to paid it back already, people would still be crying. Those banks will pay it back WITH interest just like Chrysler did in the 1970s. (Surprise! This isn't the first government loan we've had given out that was paid back in full, and BEFORE it was due I might add)
Second, he hasn't even given out all of the funds. The funds are earmarked for loans, but they haven't released them all. The stock market has already responded and I don't think you can deny that while it's at 9,000.
I have no problem whatsoever with government loans to banks as long as they are paid back with the interest which they are going to. The banks aren't welching on the loans.
"TO MICHAEL!"
You sir, trust politicians and wallstreet too much. The very same entities you are praising are the ones that got us to this point in the first place. They are also the ones making money right now while the mainstreet, average americans are suffering. So they waltz in and buy another election by telling others they're here to save them. The process will repeat, each and everytime, with one party or another.
Like I said, "give him time". I'll leave it at that.
EQ1-AC1-DAOC-FFXI-L2-EQ2-WoW-DDO-GW-LoTR-VG-WAR-GW2-ESO
I'm simply not as jaded about this whole "bailout". Firstly, because its LOANS. Not a handout. They have to repay it. When they repay it all, then what? If every bank that the government gave a loan to paid it back already, people would still be crying. Those banks will pay it back WITH interest just like Chrysler did in the 1970s. (Surprise! This isn't the first government loan we've had given out that was paid back in full, and BEFORE it was due I might add)
Second, he hasn't even given out all of the funds. The funds are earmarked for loans, but they haven't released them all. The stock market has already responded and I don't think you can deny that while it's at 9,000.
I have no problem whatsoever with government loans to banks as long as they are paid back with the interest which they are going to. The banks aren't welching on the loans.
Of course the banks will pay it back with interest, that's why my clients are paying 12.5% interest on money the FED is practically giving the banks to loan out, that's why credit card interest rates and fees are going up. The banks are "repaying" the government out of the people's own earnings. Not like Chrysler at all, Chrysler didn't raise car prices and charge people more to repay the loans, they couldn't, unless the other auto manufacturers did too. Funny how all the banks have hit on this idea, all at the same time, and are doing it. Might make a suspicious person think they were in collusion. Banks don't repay the loans, their customers do.
The stock market has responded, I'll be sure to tell those 500,000 Americans that lost their jobs in June, 2009 that fact. I'm sure they will sleep better tonight knowing that the stock market has responded. As will the ones that lost their jobs in July, once those figures are announced. Unless we have more fuzzy math logic like May, when the government projected 500,000 people would lose their job, and only 300,000 people lost their job, so 200,000 people went back to work.
Never mind that profitability is increasing not because of economic growth, but because of belt tightening/cost cutting.
Economic growth creates jobs, belt tightening and cost cutting creates unemployment.
Chrysler had more help than just the loan. The U.S. government bought hundreds of THOUSANDS of Chryslers for government use. Trucks, cars.. you name it. You point that banks are paying back people with their own money... yes, they did with Chrysler as well. This is documented as well.
Again, as long as the money is paid back and the markets are reponding this is a good thing. You're mixing in things that are unfair and I think you know it. You seem to know a bit about financial matters so why are you talking about July UNEMPLOYMENT when you should already know, based on what you've talked about that following a recession, unemployment ALWAYS lags behind by as much as a year. So saying tell that to 500k Americans isn't a fair point.
Here's the thing: We (America) elected Obama to a four year term. I personally would be patient for as many as three years to see what he and this Congress has done and what the results are. If they aren't better, I'll vote differently perhaps depending on who is opposing him. (sorry, if it's Palin.. no way in Hell.) Knowing the history of our other recessions, I wouldn't pass judgement on Obama until at least two years from now but that's me being rational.
Conversely, there are people who since Day 1 was saying "the Messiah" didn't fix this or that and that was with less than 100 DAYS in office and you know that full well. That's simply unreasonable no matter what he's doing because you have to see what the result is over his stated timeframe. He didn't say he'd do the stimulus, give loans and then in two months everything would be fixed. I am not sure how Republicans expect that when even Democrats who they claim say he's the "Messiah" don't think even that is reasonable.
"TO MICHAEL!"