POLITICAL THREAD
- Thread starter kybobcat
- Start date
Most of the credit for the rise in the stock market goes to the Fed and its pumping. I will give Obama credit for pumping up the stocks in the healthcare industry due to Obamacare.
Nixon and W. Bush two that averaged "in the middle" chalked up the lowest approval rankings of anyone other than Truman. Nixon 24, W. Bush 25. W. Bush's approval went to 90% post 9-11 but he is the only president who's approval ranking declined steadily throughout his 8 years - from 90 to 25 is the biggest bust since records have been kept. All others were up and down.
While Obama has a lengthy period of below 50%, if you look at the monthly figures most of them are 47, 48 and 49% - within the margin of error of the approval/disapproval mark
Reagan is considered among the most popular yet his average was only 52.8% which seems strangely low. But consider the fact that both Reagan and Obama took office during major economic down turns it partially explains their low averages, while others like G. H. W. Bush took office during upturns and accordingly received a very high average - 60.9%. So there is a lot lost here in the numbers.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_approval_rating
IMO The support for Trump is coming from a group of disenfranchised voters who do not like the direction either party has taken and are using Trump as a outlet to vent their frustration. By telling pollsters that their choice is Trump, they are essentially taking an opportunity to flash their middle finger at both parties.
But when push comes to shove are most of these people actually going to select Trump as the guy to set in the Oval office and make tough decisions? I mean other than "build the damn wall" and "I'll kick China's ass in trade" what serious policy positions has he put on the table? You can't manage the highest office in the land with sound bits. That won't get you much beyond the first day.
But when push comes to shove are most of these people actually going to select Trump as the guy to set in the Oval office and make tough decisions? I mean other than "build the damn wall" and "I'll kick China's ass in trade" what serious policy positions has he put on the table? You can't manage the highest office in the land with sound bits. That won't get you much beyond the first day.
Is there anyway to just blow it all up and start over? Feels like we are living in ancient rome doesn't it? Anyone here expect the USA to be functional in 500 years? I don't. We might still have a chance now if we blow it all up and start over with a 3rd party and end all the ridiculous corruption. But that pretty much seems impossible at this point.
I would vote for him in the primary to ensure he gets the red team nod (I can't vote in either primary).
Because conservatives are already turnt up to 15 over them thurr gays, the rebel flag, the poors and the browns. I wanna see them get really f'n crazy and angry to the point the enraged caucasian can no longer be contained. (When whitey turns red)
The angry conservative is about the most entertaining thing on the planet if you're apolitical like me. The libs are too whiny and smarmy for my entertainment tastes. (It's like listening to your little brother whine over not getting a turn on the slide) They don't get frothing-at-the-mouth mad over every thing. The blue-teamers just blog about it with a typewriter ... ironically.
I like my pissed off rants with a heaping helping of poor spelling and grammar with a dash of religion thrown on top for good measure.
Because conservatives are already turnt up to 15 over them thurr gays, the rebel flag, the poors and the browns. I wanna see them get really f'n crazy and angry to the point the enraged caucasian can no longer be contained. (When whitey turns red)
The angry conservative is about the most entertaining thing on the planet if you're apolitical like me. The libs are too whiny and smarmy for my entertainment tastes. (It's like listening to your little brother whine over not getting a turn on the slide) They don't get frothing-at-the-mouth mad over every thing. The blue-teamers just blog about it with a typewriter ... ironically.
I like my pissed off rants with a heaping helping of poor spelling and grammar with a dash of religion thrown on top for good measure.
To be sure, you can make the numbers stand for just about anything you want. Which is why I think he (Jay Cost, whom I quoted) tried to establish a defensible way of looking at them. He says, first, that an approval rating of 50% is a bright line marker - if more than 50% approve, that makes a president "popular", and if less than 50% approve, it makes a president "unpopular". That seems sensible enough. Second is to try to add the element of time. How much of the President's term was he above or below 50%? And that, again, seems like a defensible methodology. George Bush ended up in very low territory, but he had high to very high approval ratings for most of his first term, and he got nearly 12 million more votes in his re-election bid than he did in 2000 - that says as much about his popularity as does the fact that he was in the toilet at the end......By the way, you reference Truman, and from the beginning I said that Bush's ratings would approve over time much like Truman's did......I think Truman's approval was in the mid-20s by the time he left office, and yet you can't find a list of "Greatest US Presidents" that doesn't have in the Top 10 now.....(not saying Bush will be in the top 10, ever, just that time will rehab his image)...
I don't believe many of you realize the kinds of things the President can do, and how completely ill equipped to do them Trump happens to be.
I also don't believe many of you realize that he's not actually running for President. He's marketing himself and making a fortune. That's why he's stirring controversy and not talking policy. Even he knows he shouldn't be President. He doesn't want to be. He's cashing in on you idiots.
You really think a man with his public marketing and persona experience would be saying these things every day if he actually wanted to be elected? You don't think he'd have hired some experts to handle this stuff and keep him from making a fool of himself? This is all calculated but people think he's "telling it like it is," when in reality he's just telling it like their animal brains feel.
I also don't believe many of you realize that he's not actually running for President. He's marketing himself and making a fortune. That's why he's stirring controversy and not talking policy. Even he knows he shouldn't be President. He doesn't want to be. He's cashing in on you idiots.
You really think a man with his public marketing and persona experience would be saying these things every day if he actually wanted to be elected? You don't think he'd have hired some experts to handle this stuff and keep him from making a fool of himself? This is all calculated but people think he's "telling it like it is," when in reality he's just telling it like their animal brains feel.
My thoughts as well. Both sides annoy me but the right is much more entertaining. Good post.
All presidents approvals go up after they leave office. Without the media analyzing, critiquing and questioning ever word, expression or gesture they make 24 x 7, folks tend to forget the negative and remember anything positive.
I cannot decide which reason I'm more inclined to think The Donald is more qualified. His family values platform with multiple divorces, or I'm a Businessman! platform with multiple bankruptcies. Maybe Hillary will come out with a pro ethics platform.
I thought "The Candidate" was funny. Trump is living proof that it could actually happen.
This time it's Bernie Sanders as Marty Huggins.
This time it's Bernie Sanders as Marty Huggins.
Let's be really real here. All you need is a foot hold and a lot of ignorant people. Well, you and some others have proven we have the people, now all you need is to get that firm foot hold.
donald trump=ross Perot 1992. He is going to dick around and screw the gop. Same could be said for Bernie sanders but I don't see him as much of a threat as trump. The Republican Party is falling apart thanks to donald trump. Everyday, a new republican comes out against him lol.
The GOP deserves what they get. They haven't learned a thing from the last 2 elections.
Lol....blaming Clinton for W's and Greenspan's debacle. Wow....Damn that Clinton for invading Iraq. Such a dumb move.
"A" Shrug event? Did you just put that into singular form, sir? Have you actually read Atlas Shrugged? The book credited for influencing change among western men more than all others sans King James version and subsets et al? Shrug events are happening all around you, every day of every damn week, month and year. Read the book and maybe you'll piece fact and literary genius together next time a train derails, a bridge collapses, or a sequence of financial schemes implodes on CNN. Shrug events are what give rise to pitchfork events. Know it. Live it.
You're rapidly descending to Prophet level of asshattery ITT. Not that I mind (it provides plenty of entertainment). But at least The All Knowing One realizes nobody pays attention to His drivel except to mock it.
didn't blame clinton. A president does not have the impact on the economy that the media wants us to believe. During the clinton years, the dotcoms lost big $. There were corrections in the market during his last year. The current economy is terrible, but as much as I dislike obama I wouldn't blame our econ troubles just on him.
Our country had a good chance to really make hay with having a Repub congress.....interesting how the muslims waited to attack during the beginning of his presidency. Should he have gone to Iraq? Absolutely, but not under the guise of finding sodom's weapons, but to put an end to his reign of terror; his undisputed record of committing human atrocities.
The fist does show up if nothing is ever done to rein in the power of the 1%. Nobody ever thinks they have enough be it money or power. You should worry more about the fist here than in Europe. Europe has done a much better job of protecting their middle class. Their business leaders don't think that they're worth 400+ times their production workers like they seem to think here. Go study the failed merger of Diamler Benz and Chrysler. The Chrysler execs were earning 3-4 times that of their Diamler Benz counterparts. The Germans thought that the Chrysler management compensation should be brought in line with what they were earning. Of course the Chrysler execs disagreed.
For 50 years now we've seen production gains and real pay decline...but management compensation has skyrocketed. It is not a trend that can continue much longer. Eventually people will revolt and will take by force if necessary what they think they deserve.
I'm still of the opinion of we'd be boned either way. Both parties are controlled by outside money. It really comes down to which outside money do you support: Big business/oil and big Jesus vs. Big energy and big union.
Liberals want to give all the money to poor people and cut the military back to the size of a small town police force. Conservatives want to give all the money to rich people and blow up everything that moves.
There's some good and bad both ways, but anyone who truly believes either side will do something worth a shit is just a partisan shill. It's why I never picked a side. I've voted for Rs, Ds and Is. It'd be cool if we could let the liberals control social issues (No theocracy. Sorry red team), and have the Republicans handle defense (No Utopian land of peace and drum circles. Sorry blue team). They should compromise on the economy. Let's not screw over the whole country to pander to the elite (red team) and let's not screw over the country to pander to the bottom of society (blue team).
Yes. Dumb. But at least he spoke his mind. Id much rather someone say something stupid if they think it; rather than just repeat some PC drivel that doesnt really say anything.
As handouts and illegals increase, taxes will increase. Productive citizens will grow tired of carrying the entire burden while being taxed to death. Its already happening.
......obviously wasn't referring to you, unless you've claimed to be a prophet and i somehow overlooked it.
6 years for those killed at Ft Hood to be awarded Purple Hearts. Our Military murdered in Chattanooga deserve better.
Because the Purple Heart is for being killed or wounded in action...in other words...on the battlefield.
Because some idiot murders a soldier doesn't automatically qualify that soldier for the award. If so then you're changing what the medal means.
These guys all deserve the highest honors we can bestow upon them but I"m not sure if the Purple Heart is the correct on. A Purple heart is awarded for being wounded in a combat zone. I guess you could argue that these became combat zones. I knew guys in Vietnam that got Purple Hearts for little more than cutting their finger on a John Wayne can opener.
A Bronze Star which is award for meritorious or heroic service might make more sense IMO.
Didn't Obama classify that as "workplace violence"? How do you get a purple heart for that? I am still waiting for Obama to give a medal to Burghdal.
Here's an article about the retiring Jon Stewart, and his influence. Some amount of space is dedicated to making the case that he's not a Democratic shill, that he really is as hard on the Dems as he is on the Repubs. This is in the middle of a story with anecdotes about frequent trips to the White House to discuss important matters with Obama, anecdotes about being email buddies with Axelrod and Goolsbee and Stewart Smalley. I had to laugh at this bit:
"Goolsbee said he would often wince at Stewart’s assaults on the Obama White House and Capitol Hill Democrats. He recalled one particularly tough January 2010 episode in which Stewart used a clip from the 1980s TV show ‘The Wonder Years’ to question why the Democrats ever expected Republicans to negotiate in good faith on issues from climate change to taxes to financial reform. “You’re just cringing,” Goolsbee said. “Oh God. I think the main thing that you’re hoping is you’re hoping in your heart of hearts he’s not right.”
So, Goolsbee is again making the case that Stewart is sometimes very hard on Democrats - and does so by telling of when Stewart was making fun of Democrats for ever thinking Republicans would negotiate honestly. heh. That's a good one....He assaulted the Democrats by saying they were too nice in not understanding the Repubs are so dishonest. heh....
http://www.politico.com/agenda/story/2015/07/jon-stewarts-secret-white-house-visits-000178?hp=t3_r
"Goolsbee said he would often wince at Stewart’s assaults on the Obama White House and Capitol Hill Democrats. He recalled one particularly tough January 2010 episode in which Stewart used a clip from the 1980s TV show ‘The Wonder Years’ to question why the Democrats ever expected Republicans to negotiate in good faith on issues from climate change to taxes to financial reform. “You’re just cringing,” Goolsbee said. “Oh God. I think the main thing that you’re hoping is you’re hoping in your heart of hearts he’s not right.”
So, Goolsbee is again making the case that Stewart is sometimes very hard on Democrats - and does so by telling of when Stewart was making fun of Democrats for ever thinking Republicans would negotiate honestly. heh. That's a good one....He assaulted the Democrats by saying they were too nice in not understanding the Repubs are so dishonest. heh....
http://www.politico.com/agenda/story/2015/07/jon-stewarts-secret-white-house-visits-000178?hp=t3_r
That's along the lines of "Hey, if we reduce the amount of the spending increase then that's a spending cut, right?"
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
-
-
"Evidence that a 9 game schedule is on the horizon "
- Latest: UKWildcats1987
-
