Poll: Who would you vote for - Barack Obama or Donald Trump?

[gmart74]

lobbyists being appointed- check
bumbling and confusing foreign policy- check
lack of leadership in gulf spill- check
Failed to close GTMO- check
failed to get us out of wars- check
continued employment of patriot act- check
failed to tone down rhetoric even after asking others to do so- check
baffling energy policy- check
failed to reduce partisanship in congress- check
still giving handouts to big business- check
failed to actually reform healthcare, instead just added more depts, waste and loopholes- check
didnt fix "too big to fail"- check
failed to improve transparency in gov- check
keeps politicizing domestic policy (which car dealerships to close based on campaign contributions. which companies to give healthcare loopholes based on campaign contributions)- check
baffling views on gay marriage and gays in the miltary (one day for it, on day against it)- check

should i go on? i mean really.. in what area has he excelled or even risen to being mediocre. he has been horrific in all areas- military, domestic, foreign, energy, healthcare, finance, social, economic. you pick the area and his administration has been incompetent

 

[CharminTide]

All I know is, official polls are done with a particular formula of a sampling of the electorate. They're weighted according to percentages of Democrats, Republicans, Independents, etc. which mirrors the percentages of the electorate who affiliate themselves with those parties. The poll here isn't a scientific one. It's not even a reflection of everyone who is a member here. It's only a reflection of the people who decided to participate, which by no means can be compared to a scientifically conducted poll.

So a statement saying that the people here are "out of touch" based upon the voluntary poll here and comparing it to the "daily beast/newsweek" poll is either just tongue-in-cheek and making a silly joke, or out of touch with reality in and of itself. How can you seriously compare the two?

Thank you for making my point.

I disgree with the last part, however. The vocal members here can indeed be compared to a poll representative of the national electorate in order to conclude that the (voluntarily) soapbox-toting posters here are, in fact, out of touch with how the rest of the country feels. When you live in an echo-chamber (in this case, of right-wing groupthink), one can sometimes forget that fact, so it can be good to normalize against the rest of the country for perspective. I have no idea why this is offensive or confusing to some.

 

[ValuJet]

lobbyists being appointed- check
bumbling and confusing foreign policy- check
lack of leadership in gulf spill- check
Failed to close GTMO- check
failed to get us out of wars- check
continued employment of patriot act- check
failed to tone down rhetoric even after asking others to do so- check
baffling energy policy- check
failed to reduce partisanship in congress- check
still giving handouts to big business- check
failed to actually reform healthcare, instead just added more depts, waste and loopholes- check
didnt fix "too big to fail"- check
failed to improve transparency in gov- check
keeps politicizing domestic policy (which car dealerships to close based on campaign contributions. which companies to give healthcare loopholes based on campaign contributions)- check
baffling views on gay marriage and gays in the miltary (one day for it, on day against it)- check

should i go on? i mean really.. in what area has he excelled or even risen to being mediocre. he has been horrific in all areas- military, domestic, foreign, energy, healthcare, finance, social, economic. you pick the area and his administration has been incompetent

He couldn't erven get his NCAA picks right. What good is he to anybody but union bosses?

 

[CharminTide]

Even during the Gulf Oil Spill, he was trying to figure out "whose a-- to kick." I don't think he figured that out, but we the middle class seem to be the ones that got hammered extra hard.

It kinda seems that he's damned if he does or damned if he doesn't with you guys, isn't it? When he suspended offshore drilling in response to the spill, you guys were outraged. When he permitted it again, you cast blame anyway. Some advised increased government regulation on drilling platforms moving forward, and that was met with hostility from the right. Now that he has seemed to fall flat on that front, he gets blamed regardless. Honestly, when any action on his part is met with the same negativity from many on the right, their opinion ceases to be relevant and they're reduced to white noise.

The hypocritical cries for "bilateral leadership" from many on the right who offer naught but disdain no matter how Obama moves have made most left-leaners turn a deaf ear toward them. And it's really no fault but their own.

 

[jthomas666]

lack of leadership in gulf spill- check
failed to get us out of wars- check
baffling energy policy- check
failed to reduce partisanship in congress/toning down rhetoric- check
keeps politicizing domestic policy (which car dealerships to close based on campaign contributions.

I'd questions these three for various reasons:

1. Perception on the oil spill is clouded by right wing rhetoric trying to turn it into Obama's Katrina. (Oh, Transoceanic handed out some big bonuses. For safety. (not trying to deflect the issue, just tossing in some tangentially-related news))
2. From what I've read, he's been trying to find a solution to the Afghan situation; the problem is that there may not be one, certainly not so long as Karzai is in power. (Obama's Wars is pretty good, by the way.)
3. He's trying to reconcile ideology with reality; I have to give him credit for that--he's acknowledged that even after the gulf spill, expanded drilling is a necessity. Even after the accident in Japan, expanded nuclear energy is a necessity.
4. Hard to reduce partisanship given the blatant animosity of the Republicans. Could he have done more? Perhaps, but would it have accomplished anything?
5. Again, that's more a matter of rhetoric. Most dealership owners are Republican, so it stands to reason than more Republican-owned dealerships would be closed. I've seen nothing suggested that there was a disproportionate number of Republican-owned dealerships closed.

And I think that some healthcare reform was accomplished--just not the kind that was needed. He ignored the cost of prescription drugs and the overall lack of access to primary health care.

All the others have merit; the biggest problems (for me) have been the lack of transparency (which really covers several of your points) and bringing in lobbyists, not to mention putting people in charge of the economy who crippled it in the first place.

 

[jthomas666]

It kinda seems that he's damned if he does or damned if he doesn't with you guys, isn't it? When he suspended offshore drilling in response to the spill, you guys were outraged. When he permitted it again, you cast blame anyway. Some advised increased government regulation on drilling platforms moving forward, and that was met with hostility from the right. Now that he has seemed to fall flat on that front, he gets blamed regardless. Honestly, when any action on his part is met with the same negativity from many on the right, their opinion ceases to be relevant and they're reduced to white noise.

Excellent point.

 

[gmart74]

he is also looked upon with disdain by a lot of dems bc he cant do anything right.

and what do you mean by "you people?"

 

[gmart74]

Thank you for making my point.

When you live in an echo-chamber (in this case, of LEFT-wing groupthink), one can sometimes forget that fact, so it can be good to normalize against the rest of the country for perspective.

i'll try to give you some perspective here

It kinda seems that he's damned if he does or damned if he doesn't with you guys, isn't it? When he suspended offshore drilling in response to the spill, you guys were outraged. When he permitted it again, you cast blame anyway. Some advised increased government regulation on drilling platforms moving forward, and that was met with hostility from the right. Now that he has seemed to fall flat on that front, he gets blamed regardless. Honestly, when any action on his part is met with the same negativity from many on the right, their opinion ceases to be relevant and they're reduced to white noise.

so it is all just from the right? let me educate you and help you out with your out of touch reality. but yeah, it's only those on the right who bash him
Liberals frustrated with President Obama; angry their issues took back seat to health care reform - New York Daily News
The Note, 5/14/2009: Those Who Brung Him -- Obama, Dems wrestle themselves on national security - The Note
Liberals irked by Obama's compromises - Washington Times
Liberals Frustrated With Obama
Liberal groups growing frustrated over Obama role in climate debate - The Hill's E2-Wire
Liberals Frustrated with Obama re: GITMO and Gun Control - Forums Forums - Off Topic Forum FUN
Silly goose expectations: Frustrated left-liberals and Obama | Politics in the Zeros
Obama's Economic Town Hall: "Is The American Dream Dead For Me?
President Obama to Frustrated Liberals: 'Wake Up! This Is Not Some Academic Exercise!' - Political Punch

 

[CharminTide]

he is also looked upon with disdain by a lot of dems bc he cant do anything right.

and what do you mean by "you people?"

Oh, I definitely fault him for certain things, several of which were mentioned in your list. As for "you people," I didn't want to single anyone out... just wanted to avoid knotting up people's knickers too much today.

And thanks, jt.

 

[Bodhisattva]

Obama stands for depriving people of their wealth and liberty. I'm kind of opposed to that.

 

[CharminTide]

so it is all just from the right? let me educate you and help you out with your out of touch reality. but yeah, it's only those on the right who bash him

The fact that liberals sometimes citicize the guy is irrelevant to my point.

So much for your untwisted knickers, though.

 

[ValuJet]

It kinda seems that he's damned if he does or damned if he doesn't with you guys, isn't it? When he suspended offshore drilling in response to the spill, you guys were outraged. When he permitted it again, you cast blame anyway. Some advised increased government regulation on drilling platforms moving forward, and that was met with hostility from the right. Now that he has seemed to fall flat on that front, he gets blamed regardless. Honestly, when any action on his part is met with the same negativity from many on the right, their opinion ceases to be relevant and they're reduced to white noise.

The hypocritical cries for "bilateral leadership" from many on the right who offer naught but disdain no matter how Obama moves have made most left-leaners turn a deaf ear toward them. And it's really no fault but their own.

Or it could be that he's an inept, bumbling idiot.

 

[gmart74]

5. Again, that's more a matter of rhetoric. Most dealership owners are Republican, so it stands to reason than more Republican-owned dealerships would be closed. I've seen nothing suggested that there was a disproportionate number of Republican-owned dealerships closed.

Furor grows over partisan car dealer closings | Mark Tapscott | Beltway Confidential | Washington Examiner
this article points out some of the counter arguments but seems to be well thought out

http://www.factcheck.org/2009/09/playing-favorites-with-chrysler-dealers/
another site debunking it. believe who you will.

 

[Bodhisattva]

Furor grows over partisan car dealer closings | Mark Tapscott | Beltway Confidential | Washington Examiner
this article points out some of the counter arguments but seems to be well thought out

Playing Favorites With Chrysler Dealers? | FactCheck.org
another site debunking it. believe who you will.

I always think it's a good idea for the smart guys in Washington to decide which private sector franchises in the hinterland aren't worthy of existence. I mean, really, what does the consumer know anyway? Stupid flyover people.

 

[gmart74]

my biggest issue is the "788 republican out of 789" (and the other one giving heavily to hillary) dealerships that were closed (99.9%). if that is truly a fact, it is hard to reconcile that number with ~85% who give to republicans. on the debunking websites, i havent found if they agree with that stat or not as they keep breaking down the stats in other ways.

 

[gmart74]

So much for your untwisted knickers, though.

i'm not even wearing knickers :redface:

 

[RollTide2U]

Thank you for making my point.

That's hilarious! How in the world did I make your point? This is what you said:

Poll results for NSB: Trump (86%) defeats Obama (14%).

Poll results for normal people: Obama (43%) defeats Trump (41%).

This ain't rocket surg'ry. On the distribution curve of political opinion, this place sits 2+ standard deviations to the right. Hence: terribly out-of-touch.

:cool2:I see! You're one of these people who thinks that if he talks in circles enough and SOUNDS smart, he somehow sounds credible no matter what he says. All our little poll here proves is that 1) only the people who wanted to make a statement about their displeasure with Barack Obama responded 2) those people on here who were interested in responding would be in the 41 percentile in the scientific poll you linked. That's all. You can't compare an apple to an orange.

We can't take one poll taken by a mainstream liberal media outlet and prove that Tidefans members in general are out of touch. Besides the fact that those results are within the margin of error. I wouldn't be so proud that my President is running a statistical dead heat with Donald Trump. That's hardly a measurement of "out of touch". Taking the response of a very early and hypothetical Presidential poll and thinking that proves that Obama is "mainstream" is quite a stretch.

 

[Bodhisattva]

You can't compare an apple to an orange.

Well, to be fair, Charmin knows his fruits.

 

[RollTide2U]

Well, to be fair, Charmin knows his fruits.

Lol, well, that may be true.... his sexual preference is fine with me, but his basic premise is flawed. The last election proves that HIS side is out of touch, not a premature presidential poll in which we don't even know the sampling percentages (was it using a heavy Dem voter model?) and is within the margin of error. Trump hasn't even officially announced, and in an early poll, he's running neck and neck (within 2 pts.) with the sitting President, and this guy is saying that proves that a lot of people on here are "out of touch"?? That's some serious spin.

It's well known that some pollsters on the more, shall we say, "left" side of things skewed a lot of their polls last year by taking too large a sampling of Dems vs. Reps and Ind. Their sampling model was based on the 2008 election, and the mood had changed considerably since then. A lot of those polls were dead wrong when the election results came around. So polls themselves can be skewed to reflect what you want them to anyway.

 

[rizolltizide]

Oh I certainly agree, although clearly not every outlying viewpoint is a progressive one. But this is no doubt one principle reason why the founders sought to protect the minority view from the tyranny of the majority. Facts can and do change over time, often in unpredictable ways, and especially where the prevailing winds of society are concerned.

Maybe it means: you're the evil man, and I'm the righteous man, and Mr. 9mm here, he's the Shepard protecting my righteous bung in the Valley of Darkness. Or, it could mean: you're the righteous man, and I'm the Shepard, and it's the world that's evil and selfish. I'd like that, but that ain't the truth. The truth is: you're the weak, and I am the tyranny of evil men. But, I'm tryin', Charmin, I'm trying real hard to be the Shepard.

Carry on...