Confidence in Obama reaches new low, Washington Post-ABC News poll finds

#1
Oh my-what to do, what to do--even the Washington (Com)Post and ABC are finding such disapproval? Of course, this probably leaves Him and His handlers unmoved as one of the tenets of progressivism is that the ruling elite knows (just ask them) much more than we great unwashed such that we must be dragged to the "solutions" of the all-wise elites even if we do not approve.

washingtonpost.com
 
#2
Actually, I'm not that upset with Obama.
I genuinely believe that Obama will end the last few decades of US economic dominance on the world stage.
Obama is to the USA what Brown and Blair have been to the UK, a living, talking disaster. We've gotten rid of our socialist lunatics for a while but the US has yet to learn the painful consequences of electing somebody with a messiah complex. With a little luck the UK will come out of this one ahead of Obama-land.

I have a sneaking suspicion that Obama has bitten off more than he can chew by baying for BP's blood, he has gone head to head with big oil interests and its going to cost him dearly.

Obama is a hollow man, he is highly prejudiced and he isn't quite as clever as he thinks he is.
 
#3
I think Abe Lincoln got it right with his "fooling people some,part,or all of the time",as I've said on various posts,the similarities between Barry O Bumble,and Teflon Tone are remarkable.

The sheer arrogance of these people,is always unbelievable,but I don't think the US will put up with this shit,for as long as we did!
 
#4
The rumour I heard was that 40% of BP is owned by the US, and their pension funds will collapse if he starts arresting BP officials for incompetence, so he was told to STFU. Regardless of that, he still looks like a good leader to me; I don't care if I have to hold this trench on my own. It appears to be difficult to goad him into making a decision that other people want, and he seems to concentrate on one problem at a time. We might be looking at a stable personality that would prefer to pace himself at his own rate. After all, the US is still the only superpower, and the rest of us have to wait for their decisions. The oil will soon be coming ashore to pay off America's debts, all that is needed is a bit of patience.
 
#5
The rumour I heard was that 40% of BP is owned by the US, and their pension funds will collapse if he starts arresting BP officials for incompetence, so he was told to STFU. Regardless of that, he still looks like a good leader to me; I don't care if I have to hold this trench on my own. It appears to be difficult to goad him into making a decision that other people want, and he seems to concentrate on one problem at a time. We might be looking at a stable personality that would prefer to pace himself at his own rate. After all, the US is still the only superpower, and the rest of us have to wait for their decisions. The oil will soon be coming ashore to pay off America's debts, all that is needed is a bit of patience.
Are you interested in more information about Him and the substance of His "leadership" to make the time in your trench go by a bit faster? ;-)
 
#7
I'm surprised that Obama is still breathing. I'd assumed that the "good old boys" would have done a re run of Dallas by now.

Obuma will do for the USA what Blair/Brown did for the UK.
 
#10
Shame that O isn't meeting the high expectations.

His chief redeeming feature remains however, namely that he isn't his facile and evil predecessor. Always worth bearing that in mind IMHO.
 
#11
Obama is an idealistic fool. He was, and is, WAY too inexperienced to run the US. And it's all coming out now. 55% of the people believe he is a socialist, as I do. He is ruining this country further, by his socialist ideas/values. I truly hope he is voted out of office. I'm just waiting for the race card to be played.
 
#12
I always find it funny when Americans refer to any of their own polticians as socialists. Other than the few minor ones, there really aren't any. If Obama had attempted to implement his health planes in a European country, he would have been booted out ASAP. Far too right wing.

Not that Americans don't have a right to dislike him. They absolutely do. In turn, it is a sensible person's right to chuckle at such a silly argument.
 
#13
I'm surprised that Obama is still breathing. I'd assumed that the "good old boys" would have done a re run of Dallas by now.

Obuma will do for the USA what Blair/Brown did for the UK.
I sincerely and earnestly hope and pray that does not happen. We are (or at least should be) a nation of laws and there are prescribed ways for our governments to change.
 
#15
I always find it funny when Americans refer to any of their own polticians as socialists. Other than the few minor ones, there really aren't any. If Obama had attempted to implement his health planes in a European country, he would have been booted out ASAP. Far too right wing.

Not that Americans don't have a right to dislike him. They absolutely do. In turn, it is a sensible person's right to chuckle at such a silly argument.
I do not think the particular "ism" matters so much once you understand the underlying philosophy involved as it really includes everything from fascism to the most extreme form of socialism. The key ingredients include centraliz(s)ed control of as many of the functions of government and society as possible by an "elite" (whether politburo, "party," group or individual) who through various means (revolution, coup, or slower but no less effective means of "selling" the elite to the people through carefully orchestrated propaganda in order to "game" an election).

Once established, they then systematically set about consolidating and expanding their power. The elites can be comprised of "true believers" who really think they are "anointed" by God or man (but always determined by their own estimation of their brilliance, education, insight, birthright etc.) to "take care" of the masses who are too self-absorbed, stupid, blinded, oppressed yada yada yada to do it themselves or they can be those who very callously and selfishly use their power for their personal aggrandiz(s)ement. Either way, it is us poor schmucks who are the victims in the piece. Just as one candle drives out the dark, any freedom can frustrate the elite in their efforts to "take care" of the rest of us. Thus, the particular form this takes (fascism, communism etc.) varies with the circumstances (social traditions, form of government to be "transformed" etc.) but the dynamics are much the same. IMHO, our current masters are an amalgam of several forms as reflected by their increasing control over (those big evil ) "private corporations," banks, etc.that retain the appearance of a free market that is only at the surface. This of course is closer to classical fascism. In other ways they reflect more socialist tendencies such as increasing control over industrial and agricultural production through such nice-sounding things as "pollution prevention," "more sustainable production," etc. that are more code for government control than they are a reflection of any real "care' of the elite.

All one has to do is read some of the books and writings of our Great Master and those he has picked to surround him and advise him and it is fairly clear that this is what is occurring albeit under various code words and doublespeak.

I would note that the evil GW Bush and the Republican Congress in his first term also did much of this as well but with different labels etc ("compassionate conservatism" etc.) in that the federal government structure and spending mushroomed durng his reign as well. Regrettably, as is evident in many posts even on ARRSE, the discussion of these issues becomes mired almost immediately in partisan politics when the reality is virtually all of our politicians on the national level are "progressives" in that their default position for solving any issue is that the government should do it, or if not directly, then added layers of regulatory bureaucracy are needed to oversee (primarily to tax in various ways) the evil private companies. Thus most Republicans and Democrats on the national scene are on the same continuum and their differences are in degree not kind.
 
#16
Can POTUS be voted out before his term of office is over?Or be retired through ill health,physical or mental?
The Constitution provides In Article 2, Section 4: "The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other High crimes and misdemeanors."

And this by amendment:
AMENDMENT XXV Passed by Congress July 6, 1965. Ratified February 10, 1967.
Note: Article II, section 1, of the Constitution was affected by the 25th amendment.
Section 1.
In case of the removal of the President from office or of his death or resignation, the Vice President shall become President.
Section 2.
Whenever there is a vacancy in the office of the Vice President, the President shall nominate a Vice President who shall take office upon confirmation by a majority vote of both Houses of Congress.
Section 3.
Whenever the President transmits to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives his written declaration that he is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, and until he transmits to them a written declaration to the contrary, such powers and duties shall be discharged by the Vice President as Acting President.
Section 4.
Whenever the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the office as Acting President.
Thereafter, when the President transmits to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives his written declaration that no inability exists, he shall resume the powers and duties of his office unless the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive department or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit within four days to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office. Thereupon Congress shall decide the issue, assembling within forty-eight hours for that purpose if not in session. If the Congress, within twenty-one days after receipt of the latter written declaration, or, if Congress is not in session, within twenty-one days after Congress is required to assemble, determines by two-thirds vote of both Houses that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall continue to discharge the same as Acting President; otherwise, the President shall resume the powers and duties of his office.
[/quote]

As was shown fairly recently with Clinton, it is not easy to actually remove a President from office even when he lies directly (and quite dramatically on national television) to the American people and otherwise obstructs justice.
 
#17
I always find it funny when Americans refer to any of their own polticians as socialists. Other than the few minor ones, there really aren't any. If Obama had attempted to implement his health planes in a European country, he would have been booted out ASAP. Far too right wing.

Not that Americans don't have a right to dislike him. They absolutely do. In turn, it is a sensible person's right to chuckle at such a silly argument.
We are talking semantics here. Obama may not be a "true" socialist, as in the dictionary meaning of the word. However, his MAJOR policies are. He wants to redistribute the wealth and make everyone equal. He wants larger, bigger government, in control over everyone, so they do not have to think for themselves. His policies and stances are "socialist" in nature; therefore, if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and has feathers...

In so far as his health plans being far too right wing for Europe? What has the left done for Europe? The socialist attitudes, here in the US, are RUINING this country. Financially, this country is in a shambles and is only getting worse. Look at the UK. Didn't the government just announce a 40% reduction in government services? Greece is all but bankrupt and several other countries aren't fare behind.

Where has these 50+ years of socialism gotten anyone? A near bankrupt US and a near bankrupt Europe. It has given rise to generations of people who cannot think for themselves, do for themselves, or even want too. Social handout programs have helped ruin both our great countries.
 
#18
What JJH neglects to mention is that Obama still holds a 50% approval rating in the poll he mentions. Compared to where Bush was when he left or where Reagan was at this point in his presidency, that number is looking pretty healthy.

Leaving aside the usual paranoid and delusional ramblings from the above members with which we have become so tired... ummm familiar, we're forgetting two things. The first is that there are people on the LEFT who don't think he's going far enough or being bold enough. For example, what has disingenuously been termed "Obamacare" was more or less the Republican alternative to "Hillarycare" in the 1990s. Perhaps because of the campaign rhetoric, a lot of lefties thought that they were getting a much more transformational presidency. However, anyone who has studied Obama seriously knows that he is a pragmatist (and yes, an opportunist) and therefore the manner in which he has governed has been a disappointment.

Secondly, the economy has been slow to recover. The structural forces at play which created the recession were huge and turning the boat around is going to be both a painful and slow process. In terms of political culture, the American people tend to be tolerant of neither. If things aren't going their way, they're going to look to someone to blame, and it's usually the sitting President. Bush II got blamed for the recession in his first term even though it had its beginnings in the tail-end of the Clinton years and Reagan drew a lot of flak for poor economic performance even though the seeds were sown in the late 70s. Perhaps Obama's greatest political failure has been his relative reluctance to blame things on the last guy as much as Reagan did. Bush has been allowed to drop so far off the radar that I'm starting to wonder if he's in a witness protection program. It's no accident that his memoirs aren't coming out until right after the election in November. In contrast, the new Con-dem coalition in the UK will have no such problem, since Labour were in power before the collapse and for 2 years afterwards. The blame game will be a piece of piss for them.

Unfortunately for Obama, the sheer size of the mess he inherited has meant that he's the one seen as the point man for all the painful stuff that has had to be done to stem the bleeding. Any Republican would have taken similar steps and let us not forget where programs like TARP started- in a Republican Administration. It's all well and good for the GOP, the Tea Party fuckwits and anyone else not in power to shout foul, because they're sat in the cheap seats. They can happily Monday-morning quarterback and shout their tired old mantra for tax cuts to be the cure for all economic woes, but you'd be hard pressed to find a single economist that had any interest in how the real world worked (normally micro- rather than macro-) who'd argue that the Conservative cure-all would have been enough to fend off a collapse of the US and world economy.
 
#19
Where has these 50+ years of socialism gotten anyone? A near bankrupt US and a near bankrupt Europe. It has given rise to generations of people who cannot think for themselves, do for themselves, or even want too. Social handout programs have helped ruin both our great countries.
Actually, Phil, if you look I think you'll find that the mess we're in is more a function of capitalism run amok than socialism.
 
#20
What JJH neglects to mention is that Obama still holds a 50% approval rating in the poll he mentions. Compared to where Bush was when he left or where Reagan was at this point in his presidency, that number is looking pretty healthy.

Leaving aside the usual paranoid and delusional ramblings from the above members with which we have become so tired... ummm familiar,
Like clockwork I see. No doubt most other ARRSERs will notice that I actually linked to the whole article in --yes--the Washington Post lest I also be chided for referring to some right wing, even paranoid and delusional, source in your usual lexicon. Thus readers can see for themselves what the article says in toto.

As to your diagnosis of other posters, I was unaware that you also read a degree in abnormal psychology in addition to your others that give you such laser-like insight into what others think as well as what kind of human beings they are (and their worth as humans as well) merely from their apparent spot on your liberal-conservative scale.

One wonders if you will ever be able to actually post something without also including the (yawn) ad hominems
 

Latest Threads