Irvine511
Blue Crack Supplier
WHAT are the Republicans seeing that nobody else is?
- Thread starter anitram
- Start date
The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
we've gotten to the point in our nation where if there was a democrat in office who was doing just as bad a job, the numbers would look very similar, only reversed. thus why nothing can get done in this shit hole, and we're headed right down the toilet just like every empire in the history of man kind has before us.
MrsSpringsteen
Blue Crack Addict
I guess some are especially good at living in denial and/or covering their own butts and rationalizing. They voted for him and they don't want to admit reality and face it that he was a mistake. That combined with living in a bubble. Some of them are so well off that they would also respond that the economy is doing well too. Remember, the recession is just mental and we're all a bunch of whiners.
VintagePunk
Blue Crack Distributor
I would guess that that's why he's still supported by some members of the military and their families. Supporting him is their attempt to reduce cognitive dissonance, and to give their experiences meaning. And really, in this case, I can't blame them. They've gotta cope somehow.
nathan1977
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Gosh, I feel bad for those poor ignorant types who don't think like us. They must be ignorant/self-absorbed/ill-informed/poor/military families who have to cope somehow.
I love me some stereotypes!
ETA: Just like most other people, I too am looking forward to a new administration. I think that the first six years of the Bush presidency were a great proving ground for why both parties need to get past the resentment of the 2000 election and learn how to work together, why ideologues on both sides need to stay relegated to the sidelines, and why government works best under a two-party system where no one party has a stranglehold on the legislative and executive branches.
At the same time, I think it's patently offensive to write off those who disagree with our mentality. It's not fair to them, and it's not really fair to the two-party system we try to uphold. There are those who still support Bush, particularly when it comes to core conservative issues like national defense. Those people should not be ridiculed or written off, or -- worse -- patronized. There was a day (prior, it seems, to 2000) when smart, educated people on both sides of the aisle could disagree without accusing the other side of idiocy or ignorance. Oh, to have those days again...
I love me some stereotypes!
ETA: Just like most other people, I too am looking forward to a new administration. I think that the first six years of the Bush presidency were a great proving ground for why both parties need to get past the resentment of the 2000 election and learn how to work together, why ideologues on both sides need to stay relegated to the sidelines, and why government works best under a two-party system where no one party has a stranglehold on the legislative and executive branches.
At the same time, I think it's patently offensive to write off those who disagree with our mentality. It's not fair to them, and it's not really fair to the two-party system we try to uphold. There are those who still support Bush, particularly when it comes to core conservative issues like national defense. Those people should not be ridiculed or written off, or -- worse -- patronized. There was a day (prior, it seems, to 2000) when smart, educated people on both sides of the aisle could disagree without accusing the other side of idiocy or ignorance. Oh, to have those days again...
Bush didn't do everything wrong. To the contrary, luckily in part he didn't do anything.
Liberals need to develop a more honest and objective view of the Bush years instead of presuming that everything that has gone wrong over the past 8 years is Bush's fault, and that everything that has gone right over the past 8 years he had nothing to do with it.
Irvine511
Blue Crack Supplier
i take the point, but is it also not fair to ask the question: why do certain empirical facts not seem to have any bearing on certain people's perception of this particular president?
as as been said, everyone's entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts, and when there's a wide, wide, inarguable gap between the two, is it not poor thinking to wonder if there's not some magical thinking going on in the minds of this particular 19%?
VintagePunk
Blue Crack Distributor
Please. 19% who approve and 76% who disapprove means that there is a very, very large segment from your side who disapprove of him, as well. Are they being offensive, too? Or is the 19% a group who were gifted with some sort of special insight that the rest of us don't have?
Many Democrats should be asking themselves that question since they have a particularly unwarrented extreme view of the current President despite the empirical facts.
Or could it be that its the many of the 19% who are correctly assessing the situation just as the 22% who approved of Truman in 1952 have been proven to be correct in their assessment of Turman.
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
Have any of you considered the fact that the majority of the 19% is Strongbow, Sting, Sting2 taking the poll under several aliases?
That's the only logical answer I can find.
That's the only logical answer I can find.
Zoots
Blue Crack Supplier
Good one!
Irvine511
Blue Crack Supplier
VintagePunk
Blue Crack Distributor
Oh, I think odds are highly against that.
Irvine511
Blue Crack Supplier
nathan1977
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Be very careful about who you assign sides to. I've been very clear in the past that I am not a Bush apologist. In any event, this thread has nothing to do with Bush, and everything to do with voters. I am very, very concerned about the collapse of political discourse in this country -- discourse which has nothing to do with how we see politicians, and everything to do with how we see each other. I have no idea who constitutes that 19%, but I am willing to bet that they are more complicated and more interesting than many on this board would easily or dismissively classify them as.
VintagePunk
Blue Crack Distributor
Weren't you the one who did precisely that in your last post? We're all being offensive, patronizing, etc, because we're liberals who are questioning.
Pot, kettle much?
nathan1977
Rock n' Roll Doggie
I was referring to your last post, which said "people from my side." Which side is that? I'm registered Independent and voting for Obama.
So you can enjoy the color of your pot by yourself...
Maybe you have distinct social and cultural groups that have little in common beyond the same passport.
But it seems like nobody wants to say that out loud.
nathan1977
Rock n' Roll Doggie
But common courtesy, decency and respect should cross such boundaries, no?
Again, we can crap all we want on our political leaders. Comes with the territory, and it's good for them. But when we start deriding each other for deeply-held views, we seem to be throwing out the baby with the bathwater.
The problem is there are factions in your country that are, objectively speaking, bigoted still.
If you were are a gay man or a lesbian, you have a huge number of your own citizens not deriding you for your deeply-held views, but wishing to impose on your laws that would relegate you to second-class citizenry.
Then you have people who listen to Rush Limbaugh and think that he is funny when he sings "Barack the Magic Negro."
Then you also have rabid atheists who have little (or no) respect for anybody with even a modicum of religious or spiritual belief and brand them stupid or what have you.
So that really goes beyond deeply held views and towards active and open dislike of who certain people ARE as people.
VintagePunk
Blue Crack Distributor
I was referring to your last post, which said "people from my side." Which side is that? I'm registered Independent and voting for Obama.
So you can enjoy the color of your pot by yourself...
You're right, I looked again, and I misread one line of your post. I was wrong, and I apologize for that.
You did however toss out an accusation of being offensive and patronizing, while intentionally, I'm sure, using a phrase that I used in my post, which was directly above yours. With the many, many faults of this administration, it's not wrong to question those who still see fit to support them despite all the evidence that the past 8 years have been an utter disaster, especially in light of the fact that so much of the base have retracted their support. The incredulity with which this questioning takes place is deserved, in my opinion, given that those who question have had to sit back and watch their nation deteriorate and be made a laughing stock of the world. I'd want to know what the hell that 19 percent are thinking, too.
Vincent Vega
Rock n' Roll Doggie ALL ACCESS
It's probably hitting the wrong people as well, but after the arrogance, spitefulness and smugness, and so much more, the Bush administration and some of their base have shown towards anyone who isn't fully going hand in hand with their crap it's hard to really stay objective critizising those who still follow these politics.
deep
Blue Crack Addict
I think this ARG poll is what we call an out liner?
Most polls have Bush still around 30%, that is a low number
and low numbers for Bush are correct and deserved
and the 22 per cent in 1952 was correct and deserved.
people that lived through the Truman years got it right.
the fact that people today rate him higher because he was President when WW II ended, means very little to me.
If Iraq some how makes it and 50 years from now it is a stable functioning country,
those people then (who won't have a clue) may want to rate W above the 19% that is the true reflection of his competency.
Truman was a mediocre President,
the fact that he burned 100,000 people to a crisp
will cause many people to rate him high
The vast majority of historians and people today do not feel that Trumans 22% approval rating in 1952, the lowest of any President in history, was correct and deserved. The majority of Truman's low approval ratings were do to the Korean War, a war that the vast majority of Americans today believe was a necessity and continue to support the stationing of US troops in South Korea. But in 1952, only 37% of Americans approved of US military intervention in Korea.
Trumans ratings today are higher because Americans have changed their views about the necessity of the Korean War, and respect the policies that the Truman administration put in place to help guide US policy during the Cold War. Its Truman's post-World War II policies that have made many people consider him one of the greatest Presidents of all time, not the few months he spent as President towards the end of World War II.
Honest, objective and accurate assessments of situations, free of political bias and influence, come with the passage of time as more information becomes available and the true and lasting results of certain policies become more visible. Nearly all Democrats who voted against the 1991 Gulf War admit today that doing so was a mistake. Its doubtful that many people in 20 years will be arguing that Kuwait, the Persian Gulf, or the United States would be more safe and secure if the United States had left Saddam's regime in power.
Source?
Sting: Arbiter of Truth, Reader of Minds.
Define many. I certainly don't think Truman is commonly looked upon as one of the greatest Presidents of all time, and I think that there are easily "many" (if not many more) people who don't consider him to be one of the greatest Presidents of all time.
Now that is funny.
deep
Blue Crack Addict
Thanks for your polite response to my somewhat snippy reply.
I am not sure why Truman was at 22%
It may be because of the Korean War as you say,
I do recall when he fired MacArthur that it was not as popular as when Bush let Rumsfeld go.
I do recall the "Give em Hell, Harry" slogan.
I could do some more research learn some more.
I tend to think Lincoln is over rated, too.
Being born in 1955 I do remember a little about Nixon and do see why his standings moved up over time from when he left office. Carter seems to be holding about the same, and I can say Reagan's ratings don't change much.
I don't expect Bush 1 or Clinton's standings to move dramatiacally n future years.
Anyways, W's ratings may come up a bit, but even with good breaks I can't see them ever going up more than 8-10 points.
I guess if we live long enough, we will see.
maycocksean
Rock n' Roll Doggie Band-aid
I can think of one intelligent, thoughtful person offhand who is a Bush supporter. I should ask him his reasons for continuing to support this administration. (And that's assuming he still does. He did two years ago, when he lived here in Saipan, but we haven't talked politics much since he moved away and his views of Bush may have changed).
I'd be interested in hearing an articulate defense of the Bush administration from someone interested in having an actual discussion.
I'd be interested in hearing an articulate defense of the Bush administration from someone interested in having an actual discussion.
Irvine511
Blue Crack Supplier
i have always maintained that i had more in common with the urban francophone Europeans i've lived and worked with than with certain members of my family.
