Obama Approval/Disapproval and Approval Rating Discussion

• cbus4life

  RoyalNut wrote:

  cbus4life wrote: Obama has a boat/submarine super machine, so even if he sinks below the waves, he'll be able to get at you from below just as well. Just like Jaws. CHANGE YOU CAN BELIEVE IN!

  you make it sound like he is out to get us?

  Of course. He hates true Americans.
• MrTrackMski

  CenterBHSFan wrote:

  iclfan2 wrote: Obama XXXX. HE hasn't done one good thing imo since he has become President. YOu think he could have at least done 1 thing by now.

  Yes he has! He took his wife out to date night like he promised her!
  
  

  
  Excellent point....and it is based on facts!
• GeneralsIcer89

  Tough to rate him just yet. I'll hold off until his midterm before I make a big judgment. I've liked some things and not liked others.
• ernest_t_bass

  

  Belly35 wrote: His name is Mr. President, Obama, or President Obama on this forum.
  
  -LJ

  LOL... that sounds about right.
• 0311sdp

  Disaprove of the job he has done but I'm not at all surprised. His record in the senate if the people who voted him in would have bothered to check would have told everyone what kind of President he would be. He is very weak against terrorism which the trial in New York shows along with his handling of Afganistan (much worse now) and his health care and other domestic policies will have the couintry so far in debt we will never get out. He will be a one termer but so much damage can be done in just 4 years. He is much worse for the US citizans than George Bush ever was (although Bush wasn't very good either) We as voters had very little to pick from in the last election but even McCain would have been better than this.
• believer

  

  0311sdp wrote:He is very weak against terrorism which the trial in New York shows along with his handling of Afganistan (much worse now) and his health care and other domestic policies will have the couintry so far in debt we will never get out.

  He's weak on terrorism because===>Click Me
• Full_count

  Obama's main problem, besides being marxist in his beliefs, is that he simply made too many promises to groups to get elected and now he can't meet them without stabbing another group.
  
  Some examples:
  He promised the Teamsters more jobs.
  He promised the Enviromentalists less pollution and cutting gasoline use.
  (now how is he supposed to meet both of those two???)
  
  He promised the latinos a more open immigration policy and not to deport the illegal aliens.
  He promised more control and enforcement of our borders (especially Mexican) to stop illegal immigration.
  
  He promised a public option health care option
  He promised that no one would have to give up their current healthcare system
  He promised that healtcare reform would not add to the deficeit.
  He promised that healthcare reform would not reduce level of or access to care
  (we shall see on all of the above.)
  
  He promised that he would be tough on terrorists
  He promised that he would close Gitmo
  
  He promised that he would bring the troops home from Iraq and Afghanistan
  He promised that he would be tough on those who threaten us.
  
  He promised no new taxes on the Middle class
  He promised programs to stimulate the economy without raising the defecit.
  
  
  This post isn't about the merits or failures of the above. I am just trying to point out several examples where the President promised things during the campaign, but those promises are in direct opposition to something else he promised.
  
  He also has to deal with an out of control Nancy Pelosi, who is bent and determined to get her personal agenda through regardless of how much it wounds the President and their party.
  
  Obama was elected by a coaltion of groups.... several of those groups (both liberal and moderate) are getting very upset with him and very likely will turn against him (and the party he represents) in the 2010 and 2012 elections.
  
  Democrats will lose several seats in the Senate, many seats in the House and several Governorships in the mid term elections. It could set up a Republican re-taking of Government in 2012.
• Belly35

  

  OBAMA SUPPORTER ONLY REPLY PLEASE
  
  Ok! Time for an up-dated report from the Obama Supporter.
  
  Please provide us with your opinion of the Public Servant Obama and his Administration performance so far?
  
  Please include if you’re still employed or not…….
• cbus4life

  Happy thus far, overall.
  
  And yes, i'm still employed, and finished my Masters degree this year as well.
  
  My organization was well, well in the black for this past year. Hopefully we'll continue to stay that way.
  
  Largely as a result of us being a GLOBAL cooperative, with business and offices throughout the world. Helps a lot. Not to mention the industry i'm working in usually sees increased traffic during economic downturns.
  
  But, i was hoping for a massive health care overhaul, with the government playing a role, so i've got exactly what i voted for.
• Belly35

  

  [/i]
  
  Will past and present soldier, family member of soldiers and civilian please voice your opinion on this matter?
  
  As a retired veteran I would not serve under this Civil Administrator Obama.
  In my time in Vietnam the Vietnam Veterans Against the War movement was starting. As a member of this organization we protested against the war but not going out on some missions. Many of the Vietnam Vets was not against the war but more against the methods of fighting the war, those running the war and the decisions affecting our lives. Some units refused to go on mission in areas that where know strong areas because of the cutbacks and support due to government politics policy of the war.
  
  Soldiers lives are at stake here, American men and women, mothers and dads, sons and daughters and this Anti-war, Anti-weapons, Anti-America Organizer so call Commander and Chief is over our troops……….NO THANK
  
  If was in the military now I would walk. Walk off the battle field and take my men with me, walk to resign, walk to the step of the White House.
  What is the goal of this military campaign?
  Get in and then get out in 18 months for want reason?
  What is the objective? Did anyone hear the word “win”
  He is not in this to win or even establish anything …what are the goals?
  
  I ask this question to many of you. Would you serve under this present Obama Administration?
  How do you feel about this situation and your family members serving now?
• Strapping Young Lad

  

  I was going to join up after graduating college, until Bush got re-elected. i didn't want to serve w/ that moron running things...
  
  IMO him and Cheney put people's lives at risk for some personal vendetta against Saddam and for some oil...which losing my life is not worth.
  
  Hunting terrorists in Afganistan, perhaps, but not that....
  
  So, I understand where you're coming from Belly....I just had a close friend home on leave and all throughout all the years he served in Iraq and Afghanistan he and his buddies weren't too pleased w/ Bush and especially Dick Cheney and the war in general....
  
  They hated those two. He told me when Cheney made an appearance over there they wanted to BOO him, but of course they weren't allowed to....
  
  But if you sign up, you suck it up, i guess, even when you don't like who you're fighting for....
• believer

  

  Belly35 wrote:What is the goal of this military campaign?

  BHO's doing this to "prove" he isn't weak on defense...That's the goal...nothing more.
  

  Belly35 wrote:Get in and then get out in 18 months for want reason?

  To appease the extreme anti-war left who (a) got him the nomination over Queen Hillary and (b) to give him an easy out. He can claim "we gave it 18 months and have decided this isn't winnable."
  

  Belly35 wrote:What is the objective?

  Make no mistake...BHO does not see this as something to win. He sees it as a political opportunity.
  

  Belly35 wrote:He is not in this to win or even establish anything …what are the goals?

  That's right, he is NOT in this to win it. Like I said earlier this is a purely political CYA move on his part. The reason he chose to make this announcement in front of West Point was to (a) display himself as Commander-in-Chief and (b) get the military to buy-in on his "no win" strategy.
  
  All this being said, I served in the military for 9 years and with this smooth-talking, know-nothing CLOWN occupying the WH, I can only say November 2012 cannot get here soon enough.
• unique_67

  Belly,
  
  While Obama campaigned on the fact he planned to add troops in Afghanistan, I'm not really happy with this decisions because I just don't think its going to work. This plan will only work with the full support of the Afghan government and also Pakistan, and I'm not confident in that taking place.
  
  And, because you disdain Obama, you make the mistake many do and fail to actually listen to the things he says. The timetable for withdrawal is NOT set in stone, and he stated it will depend on "conditions on the ground". So, while I do believe he has no intentions of allowing this to be an open ended war with no type of plan, he did not say that the troops will be withdrawn in 18 months no matter what.
  
  The reason for the timetable is to let the people of Afghanistan and the Afghan government know that this is their country, and with Obama as President the US has no interest in being an occupying force. Also, in the end, without support and hard work on the part of the Afghans, no amount of US troops can change the direction of things in Afghanistan.
  
  I cannot fault ANY person for not joining the military, because it is an all voluntary military and I did not join the military when I was younger. But, if any current members of the military walk away from their commitment, they will be turning their backs on the ENTIRE COUNTRY, not just President Obama, and they will also be backing out on the commitment to which they agreed when joining the military.
  
  As always, I support the US troops 100%, but even though I voted for Obama and have preferred he announced last night that US troops will be leaving Afghanistan, not announcing 30,000 additional troops being put into the country. This is my PERSONAL opinion, and I do not have access to the intelligence info or the military experience of the people who advised Obama on the best options for Afghanistan. And, in my opinion, he was given a choice of options that were far from ideal, with the challenging being to pick which option has the best chances of succeeding and being the best for a really messed up situation.
• unique_67

  believer,
  
  This is not a political CYA move on the part of Obama, because there is alot of dissent on the "far left" about this decision, and even questioning by more moderate members of the Democratic Party.
  
  It is highly unlikely that people who did not vote for Obama in 2008 will vote for him in 2012 because of adding more troops in Afghanistan, and with this move he stands to alienate many who did vote for him in 2008. While those people will not be likely to vote for the GOP candidate in 2012, many may well just not vote at all in 2012, and by not voting at all that will have a negative impact on Obama's chances at being re-elected.
  
  Obama's Afghanistan Decision Risks a Democratic Party Civil War
  http://www.usnews.com/blogs/doug-heye/2009/12/02/obamas-afghanistan-decision-risks-a-democratic-party-civil-war.html
  
  Liberal Group Seeks To Rally Opposition Against Afghanistan Strategy
  http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2009/12/01/liberal-group-seeks-to-rally-opposition-against-afghanistan-strategy/
  
  President Obama and President Pelosi Part Ways
  Opposition to the Afghanistan troop surge is strong among the president's media allies and grassroots supporters.
  http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704107104574571993946679338.html
• believer

  

  unique_67' wrote:The reason for the timetable is to let the people of Afghanistan and the Afghan government know that this is their country, and with Obama as President the US has no interest in being an occupying force. Also, in the end, without support and hard work on the part of the Afghans, no amount of US troops can change the direction of things in Afghanistan.

  If you think this war is about the "people of Afghanistan" you're sadly mistaken. This is about flushing out al Qaeda to protect the security of the United States. Afghanistan just happens to be where the enemy has set-up shop. And make no mistake about it, these radical Islamic thugs are indeed the enemy.
  

  unique_67 wrote:I cannot fault ANY person for not joining the military, because it is an all voluntary military and I did not join the military when I was younger. But, if any current members of the military walk away from their commitment, they will be turning their backs on the ENTIRE COUNTRY, not just President Obama, and they will also be backing out on the commitment to which they agreed when joining the military.

  Perhaps, but you can be certain that if BHO isn't in this to win it, the troops will pick-up on this quickly and morale will sink like the Titanic. This could easily back-fire on BHO and create an even bigger mess than it already is.
• cbus4life

  "Afghanistan just happens to be the place where they set up shop"
  
  Pretty shitty reason for occupying a people who, by and large, want nothing to do with the Taliban, Bin Laden et. al, or anything of the like.
  
  I feel for the innocent Afghans who have been forced to deal with western invasion and occupation for far, far too long.
• fish82

  

  cbus4life wrote: "Afghanistan just happens to be the place where they set up shop"
  
  Pretty shitty reason for occupying a people who, by and large, want nothing to do with the Taliban, Bin Laden et. al, or anything of the like.
  
  I feel for the innocent Afghans who have been forced to deal with western invasion and occupation for far, far too long.

  They never made a move to rise up and remove them, did they?
• cbus4life

  fish82 wrote:

  cbus4life wrote: "Afghanistan just happens to be the place where they set up shop"
  
  Pretty shitty reason for occupying a people who, by and large, want nothing to do with the Taliban, Bin Laden et. al, or anything of the like.
  
  I feel for the innocent Afghans who have been forced to deal with western invasion and occupation for far, far too long.

  I wasn't aware that the Soviet Union was a western country.

  I know that.
  
  Was referring to others.
  
  And, of course, for the purpose of their occupation, they might as well have been Western.
  
  The point is that the people of Afghanistan have suffered for a long, long time due in part to foreign intervention.
• believer

  

  cbus4life wrote:The point is that the people of Afghanistan have suffered for a long, long time due in part to foreign intervention.

  As a lefty I'm sure you can appreciate Social Darwinism.
• unique_67

  believer,
  
  I never said this war was about the people of Afghanistan. But, Obama is wise enough to be listening to those telling him that a key to resolving the situation in Afghanistan is to give the Afghan citizens reasons to turn away from the Taliban. And, the only way to truly do that is through "nation building", along with the Afghan Government getting their act together and being a government which the citizens of Afghan truly believe is concerned about the citizens of Afghanistan.
  
  If the only goal of the US is to eliminate the Taliban through the use of military force, that will not work. And, that has proven true for several countries that have tried to use force to conquer Afghanistan in the past. The US can benefit by helping build schools, hospitals and other infrastructure in Afghanistan, along with providing the citizens of this country reason to no longer look at The Taliban as being good for the every day citizen. And, in turn, if this is successful, it will help the people of Afghanistan. Whether or not this will be the outcome remains to be seen, but this is probably the only hope that the US and the rest of the world truly has in terms of putting a serious dent into the power and influence of The Taliban.
• believer

  

  unique_67 wrote:But, Obama is wise enough to be listening to those telling him that a key to resolving the situation in Afghanistan is to give the Afghan citizens reasons to turn away from the Taliban. And, the only way to truly do that is through "nation building",...

  Not trying to diss you but I swear to you, if you remove the word "Obama" in your paragraph and insert "Bush" you liberals would be on this like white on rice.
  
  Nation building? I'm fine with that but if you're not careful you're going to end up sounding like the Bushies!
• CenterBHSFan

  

  ^^^ Yikes!
• Strapping Young Lad

  

  Bush is wise enough.....nah, no one would take you seriously if you started a sentence with that.
• unique_67

  believer,
  
  Actually, I have stated on this thread, along with the thread about Obama's speech that I'd have preferred he announce that ALL troops were being withdrawn from Afghanistan. At this point, from all the things I've learned about Afghanistan and Pakistan, plus The Taliban and the Afghan government, I really believe it is time to get the heck out of Afghanistan.
  
  And, if President Bush had used the strategy that is going to be attempted now back in 2002 or 2003, I would NOT have been negative because I supported his decision to go to war in Afghanistan from the moment he made the decision. And, I have stated the opinion multiple times on this board, as well as many times on the other huddle board.
• Mr. 300

  

  For first term president's at this junture in the term. He's at 47% and slipping fast with independents.
  
  The lowest ever recorded since they've been tracking this.
  
  http://www.gallup.com/poll/124610/brief-uptick-obama-approval-slips.aspx