He's had the lowest ratings since his election, and honestly i don't see why they were so high to begin with. What has he done for this country? What is he doing for this country? People are realizing now that Obama blew a lot of smoke but really hasn't done much, and likely won't do much for the rest of his term. For as much hype as he racked up, with his whole "CHANGE" campaign, there's been very little of that in regards to what he was offering. Especially the bailout crap, he's been doing MORE of that and nobody seems to criticize him for it. Everybody was on Bush's ass for it, but I don't see the difference. He's keeping a lot of Bush policies intact.
Obamas Ratings dropping still
- Thread starter Mokken
- Start date
- Tagged users None
- Closed Gitmo
- Increased Presidential transparency
- Increased disclosure under the FoIA
- Tightened restrictions on White House lobbying
- Banned torture/coercive interrogation techniques
- Mandated higher fuel efficiency on cars
- Repealed Bush's Mexico City Policy
- Lily Ledbetter Fair Play Act
- Expanded CHIP to cover 4 million more children
- ARRA
- Lifted the ban on embryonic stem-cell research
- Raised tobacco tax
- Extension of benefits to same-sex partners of Federal employees
- In the process of renewing and revising federal ban on assault weapons
- Expanded military budget by $83 billion
- Plans to increase military personnel by 20,000
- First President to give an address in a pre-dominantly Muslim country
Yeah, not much at all.
Will I get that promotion? Should I ask her out? Should I buy a new car? Will the guy on the crowded subway ever stop rubbing up against me inappropriately? Miss Cleo answers all these questions, and more.
And he's repealing many as well. It's gonna take a little longer than six months to undo the 8 years of damage incurred under Bush's regime.
Explain to me how any of these are meant to fix the problem so many people seemed to think was wrong with the Bush Presidency?Obama was voted for in most part as a sort of panic to get the republicans out. The Dems were smart to get someone who was charismatic enough to collect the votes, but it seems like Obama isn't living up to anything he's been saying.
Well you don't rake in $388,275,731 in campaign contributions from corporate America by promising better conditions for the man on the floor. Obama might have talked progressive politics during the election, but big business will make sure that he remains a moderate during his Presidential period. That is if he wants their money again come 2012 
Some of them aren't. Being different than Bush wasn't his only platform.
Panic? Panic implies that the day before the elections everybody decided to vote (D). No, this had been building for a couple years. Though I will agree that people voted (D) simply because they couldn't stomach another 4 years of (R) and/or refused to validate Bush's reign by electing another (R).
As has been every President for the last 100 years. Except for Harding. He was kind of a dick.
By closing Gitmo, Obama has distanced the current presidency from the previous one by closing the doors to a prison that had/has become synonomous with torture.
The Bush Presidency was known as one of, if not the, least transparent administrations ever. Obama is changing that by allowing more inquiry and being more accountable to the press/public.
Should all be self-explanatory.
The 2007 version of this bill was defeated by House Republicans.
Expanding health care.
Science > God, which the Bush regime didn't want to acknowledge.
The Bush regime allowed the previous ban on assualt weapons to expire without even so much as discussion. Though, granted, the ban was poorly worded and poorly implemented.
Diplomacy. Foreign concept for Bush. Pun intended.
Those not mentioned were not and should not be, in my opinion, tied to the Bush regime.
I really wish politics would be looked at in a more common sense way. We go so far into small things that everyone seems to lose out on the big picture. Do I care that my retirement is in jeopardy? Do I care if car markets lose a lot of money and go bankrupt? Do I care about science? Do I care about personal safety? Maybe I just don't get it, but what is the sense of saving the economy if terrorist and communist countries want to destroy us? People don't seem to put a lot of stock in the fact that Bush did look out for our safety and after 9/11 happened, we never were attacked again. Now that we have the weakest regime since the Jimmy Carter days, we stand to lose a lot more lives. I personally think we should worry about the more important things, like the lives of human beings. You know, the same human lives that put Obama into office. If he has any common sense what so ever, he'll see this and make an effort to protect them. Yeah sure, human lives are being lost over war as well, but lives of those who are making an effort to spare ours. I'll admit that I'm too much of a pussy to pick-up a gun and walk out into the field of battle, but if by any means I can protect the people around me and support the ones that are fighting for us, then I'm going to do it. The cartoons we watched when we were kids always had good guys and bad guys. And bottom line, when you negotiated with the bad guys, in a "you put the weapon down and I will too" situation, the bad guy never did! What makes our foreign situation any different? Do you really think apologizing to European countries for putting our troops out there to protect us is going to work? I'm sorry, but this seems like a logical decision to me. What is more important, my money or my safety? Greed is a sin you know.
- Joined
- Dec 23, 2007
- Messages
- 4,919
- Age
- 34
- Location
- A bunker in Munich
- Gil
- 0
- FFXIV
- Unban James, he is innocent
- FFXIV Server
- Ultros
There are no terrorist countries as such, but I assume you mean middle eastern countries right? Not that I'm trying to make you out as a racust, but that's generally what people mean. Those countries dislike America with good reason. The continued support of Israel, whether or not that's good or bad is irrelevant, if you take a side you will offend people. Installing a dictator in Iran, supporting Saddam, supplying both sides in the Iran-Iraq war. Bush's actions won't have made him many friends in the middle east, he created another generation of Bin Ladens.
Also it's America that wants to destroy Communist countries generally, Monroe doctrine etc etc.
North Korea aren't exactly typical, some countries have batshit insane leaders, his actions aren't based upon his wish for a classless society, communism will be a result of democracy, or so is believed.
Carter's foreign policy wasn't weak, it's a matter of interpretation. If you view the Cold War as a zero sum game then detente obviously favoured the Soviets, however, Nixon, Ford and Carter all went along with detente, and let's not forget Reagan signed the treaty of Malta, which 'sent the cold war disputes to the bottom of the med'.
You don't have to be offensive to be defensive
As CassinoChips pointed out, Obama is communicating with the Muslim world. He's making friends with them, so they won't want to blow you up.
That's just silly.
You can't invade the US, people hate your country because of Bush. People realise that Obama isn't great, but at least he's not invading Iraq, he's not making enemies left, right and centre. You can never be completely safe, people will still hate America, but just less people than with Bush in charge.
My cartoon metophor here is that making friends with them will only result in us getting the shaft. Again, the big picture is what I'm shooting for here. You'd be naive to think that if we negotiate with them, that in return they'll see to it that our country never recieves terrorist harm. And also, this is basically saying that we are a country becoming an ally of a country that supports terrorism, that doesn't exactly make me rest easy either.
And yes, the Carter regime was the weakest to date. If we are negotiating with countries in a non-war way without threats, then that makes us weak as well, no? A strong front prevents, or at least slows down the progress and planning of terrorism. I recall the US hostages in Iran under Carter's administration, and they were willing to let them free is Reagen was elected. Who knew the threat of a "shoot from the hip" President would have such an effect?
I agree that you don't have to be offensive to be defensive. But how do you defend against people who are willing to take their own lives in order to take others? You can't really, but at least keeping them in their homeland will keep them away from innocent civilians.
- Joined
- Dec 23, 2007
- Messages
- 4,919
- Age
- 34
- Location
- A bunker in Munich
- Gil
- 0
- FFXIV
- Unban James, he is innocent
- FFXIV Server
- Ultros
The Iran Hostage Crisis was America's fault. You install a dictator, that's what the Shah was, and to be honest you should get some kind of comeuppance. If America hadn't interefered, then it never would have happened.
America is not really under threat of invasion, at that time the only threat was a nuclear strike, and both sides were equally likely to nuke the other. Carter decreased that rosk with SALT 2, although never officiallt ratified, both the US and the Soviets adhered to its limitations. No threats involved.
The cartoon misses the point. It's not about negotiations, it's about not trying to alienate another generation of people. It would be a fairly safe bet to say that if the US stayed out of middle easten affairs, and always had done, less people would want to blow up the US. It can be proved, but do you get my point, provention rather than negotiation.
Can't be done. There's always going to be away to target a country. Either in America or outside of it. No amount of troops or weapons can stop America being a target.
Whoa, I just realized that we've been babbling on and going off topic in the process. For the sake of Mokken's initial post, I think it would be best that we get back on topic. I am still in disagreement with a lot of things you've said Hal, especially with the cartoon metaphor. The metaphor is clear and I think you're failing to understand it correctly. Again, we are over-analyzing. However, I do appreciate that you would take to time to research about our fine nation. Unfortunately, you couldn't fully understand what we Americans go through unless you were living it here with us. Perhaps, become an American citizen for 10 years or so?
Why is Obama's ratings dropping? Simple, people expected to see changes, especially with the economy. The population felt that our 3 trillion dollar stimulus would work wonders, it hasn't. He was gonna create hundreds of thousands of jobs, unemployment has grown since he's been in office. After 6 months, it becomes more difficult to blame Bush for everything, like everyone likes to do, so he is next in line. People are tired of dedicating their tax money into funding that seems to be no more than a black hole. I've heard too that they want to tax us for the energy we use. Hmm, if taxes weren't already high, we raise them? I've also heard that they want to add a hybrid vehicle plug to all houses, and if a person tries to sell the house without it, they won't be able to? I'm no genius when it comes to the housing business, but if people were to take initiative and sell their house before it gets foreclosed, but didn't have this plug, that would force the homeowner to eventually lose it. That doesn't sound like a good idea to me. It would seem the people are starting to realize that voting Obama created a change, but not a change for the better. I never approved of him, and I'm proud to say that I never vowed for change. My life was going just dandy without his changes.
Why is Obama's ratings dropping? Simple, people expected to see changes, especially with the economy. The population felt that our 3 trillion dollar stimulus would work wonders, it hasn't. He was gonna create hundreds of thousands of jobs, unemployment has grown since he's been in office. After 6 months, it becomes more difficult to blame Bush for everything, like everyone likes to do, so he is next in line. People are tired of dedicating their tax money into funding that seems to be no more than a black hole. I've heard too that they want to tax us for the energy we use. Hmm, if taxes weren't already high, we raise them? I've also heard that they want to add a hybrid vehicle plug to all houses, and if a person tries to sell the house without it, they won't be able to? I'm no genius when it comes to the housing business, but if people were to take initiative and sell their house before it gets foreclosed, but didn't have this plug, that would force the homeowner to eventually lose it. That doesn't sound like a good idea to me. It would seem the people are starting to realize that voting Obama created a change, but not a change for the better. I never approved of him, and I'm proud to say that I never vowed for change. My life was going just dandy without his changes.
Wow, you honestly expect Obama to turn 8 years of shit the right way up in a mere 7 months?? Are you serious?! As much as the media liked to advertize him as the sent "Jesus our Savior!", the guy never actually was that and never will be.
^ Detention of aliens? Oh noes, DISTRICT 9!!!!! :-O
Almost makes you wonder where movie ideas come from.
Anyways, it's kind of hard to reply to a thread when my points have been made already. The media has been very nitpicky about the things they've criticized Obama for. Like the governor a few months back...geez the name slips me. Geez I feel stupid, he had a rather unusual last name though. Anyways, Fox was on Obama like white on rice, ready to make him look horrible for something so irrelavant. But Fox also has a track record of making any Democrat look soo much worse than they really are.
My other two main points were stated already, one, if you don't like what he's doing so far, wait and see what happens, it's only been seven months. And if you aren't happy at any point, then sanction him with your armies. The second is the point on the war; no, he hasn't pulled out troops yet, but had the Bush's never been in Iraq to begin with, we wouldn't have that problem. Not even McCain could've waved his magic rod and poofed troops out of there, and even if he could have, I seriously doubt he would have. We're there either way, that point should be irrelavant with the next couple of presidencies. Like a bonus point on a test.
Almost makes you wonder where movie ideas come from.
Anyways, it's kind of hard to reply to a thread when my points have been made already. The media has been very nitpicky about the things they've criticized Obama for. Like the governor a few months back...geez the name slips me. Geez I feel stupid, he had a rather unusual last name though. Anyways, Fox was on Obama like white on rice, ready to make him look horrible for something so irrelavant. But Fox also has a track record of making any Democrat look soo much worse than they really are.
My other two main points were stated already, one, if you don't like what he's doing so far, wait and see what happens, it's only been seven months. And if you aren't happy at any point, then sanction him with your armies. The second is the point on the war; no, he hasn't pulled out troops yet, but had the Bush's never been in Iraq to begin with, we wouldn't have that problem. Not even McCain could've waved his magic rod and poofed troops out of there, and even if he could have, I seriously doubt he would have. We're there either way, that point should be irrelavant with the next couple of presidencies. Like a bonus point on a test.