34% - Page 7 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 04-21-2006, 12:23 PM   #91
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,499
Local Time: 02:58 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2

The current polls are entertaining for liberals, but thats about the extent of their significance.

the republicans facing re-election in 2006 certainly view the current polls as significant as they beg the White House to look as if it's changing course and shaking up its staff, seek to distance themselves from Bush himself, and try to separate themselves from the Iraq debacle. it also affects Bush's effacacy in getting his legislation passed in the House.
__________________

__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 04-21-2006, 01:53 PM   #92
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 11:58 AM
So, given the poll trends, we should see significant Democratic gains in both houses this fall.
__________________

__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 04-21-2006, 03:05 PM   #93
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,499
Local Time: 02:58 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by nbcrusader
So, given the poll trends, we should see significant Democratic gains in both houses this fall.

depends on how well the voting machines are rigged this time.

__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 04-21-2006, 03:26 PM   #94
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 11:58 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2


He already won the only poll that was relevant, the 2004 election. You can talk about this weeks poll, next months poll or next year's poll, but he will still be President carrying out his policies. The current polls are entertaining for liberals, but thats about the extent of their significance.
Are these writings are therapeutic?
__________________
deep is offline  
Old 04-21-2006, 04:20 PM   #95
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
U2DMfan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: It's Inside A Black Hole
Posts: 6,637
Local Time: 01:58 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2


He already won the only poll that was relevant, the 2004 election. You can talk about this weeks poll, next months poll or next year's poll, but he will still be President carrying out his policies. The current polls are entertaining for liberals, but thats about the extent of their significance.
It's a signifigant number when you start losing your base in such a manner, you should know this. 33% for Bush from a Fox News poll is beyond horrible.

How on earth is Bush's policy going to be carried out by a bunch of politicians running away from him like he has the plague?
__________________
U2DMfan is offline  
Old 04-21-2006, 04:29 PM   #96
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
U2DMfan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: It's Inside A Black Hole
Posts: 6,637
Local Time: 01:58 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by nbcrusader
So, given the poll trends, we should see significant Democratic gains in both houses this fall.
Haha, well let's see the quality of candidates the Dems roll out this time around, my money is still on the Reps holding it down. I see Bush as the abberation to the camp, a complete bufoon that most smart conservatives and Republicans are distancing themselves from, eventually he'll be as 'lame duck' as you can get.

In fact, that will be the secret to success for the Reps in '06 or even '08. Run away from the worst President of any of our lifetime. It's not hard to figure out if someone is willing to just try and be objective. The Reps could save still face, I don't think it's that big of a deal yet, they just need to say "this isn't the type of policy and competency we are all about".

According to these same poll trends, Republicans have given a higher approval rating to congress, so I still think the Dems are fighting more than an uphill battle.

That said, according to Gallup, these are the worst congressional approval ratings since, you guessed it, 1994, when the last shift of power occured.

Which going back to what Sting was saying, is even more evidence that these new approval ratings are important. Because this is their opportunity to step back from the mistakes and start working towards favorability, they can't do it backing Bush, everyone left on his bandwagon is blinded by loyalty or stupidity.
__________________
U2DMfan is offline  
Old 04-21-2006, 06:28 PM   #97
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 07:58 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by U2DMfan


Haha, well let's see the quality of candidates the Dems roll out this time around, my money is still on the Reps holding it down. I see Bush as the abberation to the camp, a complete bufoon that most smart conservatives and Republicans are distancing themselves from, eventually he'll be as 'lame duck' as you can get.

In fact, that will be the secret to success for the Reps in '06 or even '08. Run away from the worst President of any of our lifetime. It's not hard to figure out if someone is willing to just try and be objective. The Reps could save still face, I don't think it's that big of a deal yet, they just need to say "this isn't the type of policy and competency we are all about".

According to these same poll trends, Republicans have given a higher approval rating to congress, so I still think the Dems are fighting more than an uphill battle.

That said, according to Gallup, these are the worst congressional approval ratings since, you guessed it, 1994, when the last shift of power occured.

Which going back to what Sting was saying, is even more evidence that these new approval ratings are important. Because this is their opportunity to step back from the mistakes and start working towards favorability, they can't do it backing Bush, everyone left on his bandwagon is blinded by loyalty or stupidity.
So your saying I'm loyal or stupid, which is it?

But on to the relevance of these polls and Bush carrying out his policy. How have the current polls impacted Bush's foreign policy and his ability to carry it out? How have the current polls impacted Bush's policy in Iraq and Afghanistan?

How many Republicans have abandoned Bush on Iraq and what have they been able to do to change policy either there or in Afghanistan?

The fact is, Congress continues to pass all of his spending bills for both wars. A bill was introduced calling for the immediate withdrawal of US troops and it was crushed.


Its true that the Historic support that Bush has had previously from Congress may not be there to that degree anymore, but he does not need that level of support to carry out his Foreign Policy.

After Bush's first two years in office, the public went to the election booths in November of 2002, and gave the Republican party a boost in both houses of Congress. In most mid-term elections, the party in the White Houses loses seats in both houses.

Even more historic was the fact that Bush picked up seats in both houses of Congress during the 2004 election. The last time an incumbent president picked up seats in both houses of congress in their run for re-election was a half century ago. As for the 2004 election, this was the first election in which a president won by a solid majority since 1988. You may think he is the worst President of the past several decades, but those elections results do not indicate that the American public agrees with you.

As for this year, I don't see the Republican Congress adopting a platform that rejects or goes against Bush in Iraq, Afghanistan, or his overall Foreign Policy. When it comes to supporting spending for his projects in these area's, the support is still there.

In regards to Bush's most important objectives for his second term, I don't see anywhere where low poll numbers or the fact that some congressman may have distance themselves from him, have significantly impacted the votes on the key issues in congress in regards to supporting these objectives.

For there to be a significant impact on Bush's policies, control in congress would first have to change. Even then, its unlikely that the Democrats could stop Bush from carrying out his most important policies. Democratic majorities in both houses did not stop Reagan or Bush Sr., and is a sign of the Democrats historic lack of unity.

As for the 2006 elections, the Senate will remain in Republican control. The Democrats have a shot at retaking the House, but thats it. The Democrats have been talking up these poll numbers for so long now, that if they do not retake the House in November, it will be seen as a major defeat for them. At that point, Bush will have two more years in office before McCain starts his 8 years in the White House.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 04-22-2006, 01:17 AM   #98
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
U2DMfan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: It's Inside A Black Hole
Posts: 6,637
Local Time: 01:58 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2


So your saying I'm loyal or stupid, which is it?

But on to the relevance of these polls and Bush carrying out his policy..........
Well, I don't think your stupid, so I'll say loyal to a fault.
That's not the worst quality in the world to have, but it can be difficult to converse with.

We're not going to see eye to eye on this issue, Bush is almost infallable to you, clearly I can't reach someone who beleives this.

I'm talking about the future, elections, policy both domestic and foreign, all of it. And you are talking about war policy. Because foreign policy with little to no diplomacy is really just war policy.
And he can further that because he has the executive power to do so. So it's not a straw in his cap on that alone, nevermind it's failures.

So I'll leave it there. Have a nice weekend.
__________________
U2DMfan is offline  
Old 04-22-2006, 03:12 AM   #99
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 07:58 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by U2DMfan


Well, I don't think your stupid, so I'll say loyal to a fault.
That's not the worst quality in the world to have, but it can be difficult to converse with.

We're not going to see eye to eye on this issue, Bush is almost infallable to you, clearly I can't reach someone who beleives this.

I'm talking about the future, elections, policy both domestic and foreign, all of it. And you are talking about war policy. Because foreign policy with little to no diplomacy is really just war policy.
And he can further that because he has the executive power to do so. So it's not a straw in his cap on that alone, nevermind it's failures.

So I'll leave it there. Have a nice weekend.
There has been a lot of diplomacy despite what critics may say. Most foreign troops in Afghanistan at the moment are not American, their from other NATO nations. Its really impossible to seperate what you refer to as war policy and diplomacy. The United States is actively involved in hunting Al Quada all over the world with the help of foreign intelligence and security agencies worldwide. The United States has continued to work with other countries on international trade matters through the WTO as well as individually. Bush just met with China's President although there were no major accomplishments on disputes in regard to the trade balance and China's markets and currency. Not a surprise though since progress tends to be more gradual than sudden in regards to those matters.

Lets remember though that the office of President in the United States is really a foreign policy position in terms of the level of influence the President has vs domestic policy. The chief goals of the President involve Foreign Policy. The country is in a middle of a war right now, and that trumps any domestic issue period. You are correct in bringing out the point that the President can further these things to a great degree simply because of his executive power, which simply supports my point that the weekly poll of 1,000 people showing Bush's rating at this percentage is simply irrelevant.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 04-22-2006, 07:33 AM   #100
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
BonosSaint's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 3,566
Local Time: 03:58 PM
Yep, we understand that if Congress funds it, the President can do pretty much what he wants to do with foreign policy for the next several years, whether the people he serves want him to do it or not.

I think there is probably an increasing perception that Iraq is the President's war, not America's. We're just paying for it.
__________________
BonosSaint is offline  
Old 04-22-2006, 04:42 PM   #101
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 07:58 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by BonosSaint
Yep, we understand that if Congress funds it, the President can do pretty much what he wants to do with foreign policy for the next several years, whether the people he serves want him to do it or not.

I think there is probably an increasing perception that Iraq is the President's war, not America's. We're just paying for it.
If the American public is really that strongly against the war, there are things they can do, and congress with enough support could indeed cut off the funding for the war. But that level of support simply does not exist. On the third anniversy of the war, many large cities in America only had a few hundred people marching against the war.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 04-22-2006, 11:18 PM   #102
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
BonosSaint's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 3,566
Local Time: 03:58 PM
Lack of street protest doesn't mean full on support of the war. I don't do street protests because on the whole, I think they are a waste of time and energy. I find other forms of dissent more effective. I'm sure others would reasonably disagree with me. But I think a good amount of Americans have just disattached themselves from the war.
__________________
BonosSaint is offline  
Old 04-23-2006, 09:59 AM   #103
Blue Crack Addict
 
MrsSpringsteen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 24,997
Local Time: 02:58 PM
So nobody who voted for Bush regrets it or has changed his/her mind about him? Not even any conservative Republicans?

Yes he got the job but the public's negative opinion of that job certainly doesn't just consist of "liberals". He got the job but his job performance is sorely lacking.

That's like saying Sting that "I got the job but my bosses evaluation of my performance doesn't matter". As far as I'm concerned we are all still Bush's bosses, even though he doesn't seem to think so.
__________________
MrsSpringsteen is offline  
Old 04-24-2006, 11:58 AM   #104
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,499
Local Time: 02:58 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2

On the third anniversy of the war, many large cities in America only had a few hundred people marching against the war.


funny, the protests i've been to have had tens of thousands of people. of course, they were organized months in advance.

could it be that nothing was officially organized on that specific day? could it be that using the lack of protests as an example is completely and totally misleading and inaccurate as well as throughly irrelevant? does this draw into question the rest of your "facts" about the war as well as the ultra-convenient, blinkered "conclusions" as well? where are the pro-war demonstrations? where was the re-enacement of the toppling of the statue of Saddam on that's third anniversary? it was well stage-managed for the cameras back in 2003, why coudln't they have done the same thing in 2006 in Washington DC? are we to read the lack of any pro-war demonstrations or celebrations as an indication that the level of support you (and, perhaps, only you) believe exists in the United States?
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 04-24-2006, 02:31 PM   #105
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 07:58 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511




funny, the protests i've been to have had tens of thousands of people. of course, they were organized months in advance.

could it be that nothing was officially organized on that specific day? could it be that using the lack of protests as an example is completely and totally misleading and inaccurate as well as throughly irrelevant? does this draw into question the rest of your "facts" about the war as well as the ultra-convenient, blinkered "conclusions" as well? where are the pro-war demonstrations? where was the re-enacement of the toppling of the statue of Saddam on that's third anniversary? it was well stage-managed for the cameras back in 2003, why coudln't they have done the same thing in 2006 in Washington DC? are we to read the lack of any pro-war demonstrations or celebrations as an indication that the level of support you (and, perhaps, only you) believe exists in the United States?
Street demonstrations have long been an important characteristic and activity of any anti-war movement. Street demonstrations and celebrations have never really been characteristics of pro-war support except after the end of hostilities as we find with both World War II and the 1991 Persian Gulf War. The lack of street demonstrations in support of a war is irrelevant, since even during this countries most popular wars, there were never any large demonstrations or celebrations until the end of hostilities. The lack of street demonstrations or unsually small numbers at them is relevant when looking at the anti-war movement since that is a key characteristic of that movement.

The toppling of the Saddam statue was really a more random event back in 2003. US Marines and Soldiers were still supposed be engaged against well dug in Republican Guard units on that day. US forces moved far faster though than they had planned with light casualties, unlike the thousands they were supposed to suffer according to many in the media as well as the anti-war movement. A unit commander heard about a small group of Iraqi's attempting to take down a statue and decided to help them out now that Iraqi resistence forces had largely been crushed in his area. With so many military and civilian reporters with camera's imbedded with most units, the whole thing was naturally filmed as was much of the combat and movement of these particular units in the days leading up to that time. The American soldier who initially got to the top of the statue first put an American flag over the face of it, definitely not a sign of some well rehearsed plan. The comparison between this and the anti-war movements key demonstrations in the United States is absurd.

Virtually every media organization reported on the protest of the 3rd anniversy of the war and what the key feature of the news was, was how poorly attended the events were. Such poor attendance would never have happened during the Vietnam War. In a country that is 50% larger in population today than it was during the days of Vietnam, such tiny numbers at protest are not a sign of a strong thriving anti-war movement. The numbers are tiny even compared to the protest 3 years ago at the start of the war, let alone what was seen during Vietnam when the country was clearly divided on the issue.
__________________

__________________
STING2 is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:58 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com