Public more aligned with Obama than GOP

[peacepipe]

Originally Posted by Arkie

The party that doubled the size of government under Bush is not the answer for real conservatives. The Democrats biggest lead was in 2008. Now a record number of Americans claim to be independent. The Democrats need to make the most of their time in power before the opposition reorganizes.

You guys need to do more then reorganize,our country is shifting & unfortunately for you it's not shifting in your direction. I wouldn't be going out on a limb when I say we're a center-left country.

[Rohirrim]

If the SCOTUS had not selected George Bush, Al Gore would have (rightfully) been president and guess what? No 911. No Iraq.

We wouldn't be in this mess.

Thank you, Right Wingers, for Dubya.

[lonestar]

Originally Posted by BroncoInferno

How do we determine which polls are rigged, then, in your view, since you claim so many of them are? Seems to me you simply don't like what this poll has to say, so you've dismissed it as rigged without even attempting to offer evidence of such.

I'll do this slowly. I do not believe I ever said the polls before the election were rigged.

Now as to polls in general. A good pollster can word a poll to assure an afirmative answer to prove the point/politician is how they want it to come out. That plus only asking the question to certain a demographic..

This manipulate the answer they are looking for.

I have seen enough exposes with man on the street cameras to know just how dumb 90+% of the American public is.

Please tell me that you are not really dumb enough to believe said polls.

[lonestar]

Originally Posted by nyuk nyuk

Not quite.

President Obama Job Approval
Polling Data
Poll	Date	Sample	Approve	Disapprove	Spread
RCP Average	1/30 - 2/20	--	50.6	42.6	 +8.0
Gallup	2/18 - 2/20	1500 A	50	42	 +8
Rasmussen Reports	2/18 - 2/20	1500 LV	51	47	 +4
Bloomberg	2/15 - 2/18	1003 A	55	40	 +15
USA Today/Pew Research	2/13 - 2/18	1504 A	51	41	 +10
CBS News	2/6 - 2/10	1148 A	52	38	 +14
FOX News	2/4 - 2/6	1010 RV	49	45	 +4
Quinnipiac	1/30 - 2/4	1772 RV	46	45	 +1
All President Obama Job Approval Polling Data
	RCP POLL AVERAGE 
President Obama Job Approval
50.6
Approve	
42.6
Disapprove

[houghtam]

Originally Posted by lonestar

I'll do this slowly. I do not believe I ever said the polls before the election were rigged.

Now as to polls in general. A good pollster can word a poll to assure an afirmative answer to prove the point/politician is how they want it to come out. That plus only asking the question to certain a demographic..

This manipulate the answer they are looking for.

I have seen enough exposes with man on the street cameras to know just how dumb 90+% of the American public is.

Please tell me that you are not really dumb enough to believe said polls.

This is why any reputable polling center posts its research methodology. See post #3, read the research and please, tell me exactly how the polls were manipulated.

[W*GS]

There are some, almost all on the right, who will never accept anyone other than a white man as President.

[elsid13]

Originally Posted by Rohirrim

If the SCOTUS had not selected George Bush, Al Gore would have (rightfully) been president and guess what? No 911. No Iraq.

We wouldn't be in this mess.

Thank you, Right Wingers, for Dubya.

As much as I think W was not very good president, there is no indication that 9-11 would not have occurred. There was systemic failure on many levels that there is very strong chance some terrorist event would have occurred. Now I would agree if you stated that there wouldn't have been another Iraq conflict and Afghanistan would have been different strategy.

[Rohirrim]

Originally Posted by elsid13

As much as I think W was not very good president, there is no indication that 9-11 would not have occurred. There was systemic failure on many levels that there is very strong chance some terrorist event would have occurred. Now I would agree if you stated that there wouldn't have been another Iraq conflict and Afghanistan would have been different strategy.

What we know is that Cheney and Rice laughed off Clarke's warnings. Would Gore have done the same? Clarke wanted them to "shake the tree" and see what falls out. What would easily have fallen out is two of the Saudis taking flight lessons in San Diego. There is, in fact, a very strong argument that 911 would have been averted had somebody been in power who gave a ****. And as the Daily Kos pointed out, "There are many reasons why, but the primary one is the fact there is absolutely no way that he (Al Gore) would have blown off the August 6th PDB. Vice President Gore took personal and direct charge of the Safety and Counter-Terrorism planning for the Atlanta Olympics in 1996 simply because NSC Counter-Terrorism Chief Richard Clarke asked him to get involved."

Cheney, who Bush put in charge of anti-terrorism, spent that eight months putting sweetheart energy deals together with his buddies in the energy industry and didn't hold his first anti-terrorism meeting until a week before 911. And regarding Irag, you think Al Gore would have bought into the neocon Wolfowitz doctrine? Really? Your argument has no merit.

[elsid13]

Originally Posted by Rohirrim

What we know is that Cheney and Rice laughed off Clarke's warnings. Would Gore have done the same? Clarke wanted them to "shake the tree" and see what falls out. What would easily have fallen out is two of the Saudis taking flight lessons in San Diego. There is, in fact, a very strong argument that 911 would have been averted had somebody been in power who gave a ****. And as the Daily Kos pointed out, "There are many reasons why, but the primary one is the fact there is absolutely no way that he (Al Gore) would have blown off the August 6th PDB. Vice President Gore took personal and direct charge of the Safety and Counter-Terrorism planning for the Atlanta Olympics in 1996 simply because NSC Counter-Terrorism Chief Richard Clarke asked him to get involved."

Cheney, who Bush put in charge of anti-terrorism, spent that eight months putting sweetheart energy deals together with his buddies in the energy industry and didn't hold his first anti-terrorism meeting until a week before 911. And regarding Irag, you think Al Gore would have bought into the neocon Wolfowitz doctrine? Really? Your argument has no merit.

Transition time in president's administration are always difficult times, so I like I stated we don't know if made a difference, especial with all the systemic problems that occurred. I lean on the probability that attack would occurred in same fashion no matter who was president.

Also I as I attempted to state I believe that Gore would focused on the real enemies power base - Afghanistan, and not taken us into the ****-up that was Iraq.

[Rohirrim]

Originally Posted by elsid13

Transition time in president's administration are always difficult times, so I like I stated we don't know if made a difference, especial with all the systemic problems that occurred. I lean on the probability that attack would occurred in same fashion no matter who was president.

Also I as I attempted to state I believe that Gore would focused on the real enemies power base - Afghanistan, and not taken us into the ****-up that was Iraq.

Had Bush not been selected by Scalia and Al Gore made rightful president, there would have been little to no "transition" whatsoever given that Gore was already there and would have kept many of Clinton's people. So, wrong again. Gore was also deeply involved in anti-terrorism and took it very seriously. He would no doubt have put Richard Clarke in immediate control of anti-terrorism efforts with a free hand and full backing of the powers of the federal government. The transition would have been nearly seamless. We know that Bush worked hardest that first eight months in completely overhauling nearly every position in Washington and filling it with a neocon.

In regards to anti-terrorism, we know that Cheney and Rice not only did absolutely nothing, but they ignored the information they were given. They not only made no efforts, they were disinterested in those who were trying to make efforts. The difference in outcome of the two approaches would have been enormous. You're arguing that if one group does something and another group does nothing, the outcomes will be the same. Ridiculous.

There is a human failing that says the fait accompli was always the best outcome. Why? Because it happened. We accept Iraq simply because it's over. We accept 911 as inevitable simply because it happened. It's how we hide from our mistakes. It's how the right wing apologists cover their tracks. 911 was the most easily preventable attack in American history. Why? Because it was so slapdash and low tech, and we already had the evidence in our possession to stop it. It actually required a vacuum of leadership at the top for it to succeed. That vacuum, provided by George Bush, was an element of its success.

The reverberations of the disaster that was George Bush will ripple out for decades and may succeed in ending this country as we knew it. I think historians will consider his presidency the turning point to the downfall of America.

Too bad that so many Americans (specifically of the Right Wing, Tea Party persuasion) still don't grasp that their ignorant decisions have had a crushing and devastating effect on this country and the world. They continue their ideological crusade still. I don't know how much devastation they require before they accept that their ideas and policies are poison. I guess we'll see.

[BroncoBeavis]

Originally Posted by Rohirrim

There is a human failing that says the fait accompli was always the best outcome..

A corollary human failing is one where a person believes everything in the world would've been improved if only their own personal preferences had been followed.

Most of your post is a shining example.

[Arkie]

Originally Posted by Rohirrim

If the SCOTUS had not selected George Bush, Al Gore would have (rightfully) been president and guess what? No 911. No Iraq.

We wouldn't be in this mess.

Thank you, Right Wingers, for Dubya.

There's no way to know "what if's", but you're giving too much credit to one man to change things that dramatically. Only a dictator who loves his people could have prevented this mess. There are so many more variables before Bush, during Bush, and after Bush that were out of Bush's control. If the President really does have that much power, then we need to shrink his power.

Our foriegn policy hasn't changed much under different presidents. The same scenario could have happened under Gore. He likely would have invaded Iraq in 2003. He's in the same group as the Clintons. Hillary voted to attack.

[TonyR]

Originally Posted by Arkie

He's in the same group as the Clintons. Hillary voted to attack.

I partly agree, they aren't faultless. But at the same time you have to consider that they were going off of the false information that team Cheney created and propagated.

[TonyR]

Originally Posted by BroncoBeavis

Most of your post is a shining example.

You do realize you've posted nothing to argue or contradict his posts, right? He made a good argument, right or wrong. You've made no argument.

[houghtam]

Originally Posted by Arkie

There's no way to know "what if's", but you're giving too much credit to one man to change things that dramatically. Only a dictator who loves his people could have prevented this mess. There are so many more variables before Bush, during Bush, and after Bush that were out of Bush's control. If the President really does have that much power, then we need to shrink his power.

Our foriegn policy hasn't changed much under different presidents. The same scenario could have happened under Gore. He likely would have invaded Iraq in 2003. He's in the same group as the Clintons. Hillary voted to attack.

You realize Cheney and Rumsfeld were the ones who were immediately searching for a link between OBL and SH, right? Something tells me that the guys who ended up getting rich off the war would have been more likely to find a way to go to war than Gore/Lieberman. Unless our tanks and planes were solar powered.

[peacepipe]

Originally Posted by Arkie

There's no way to know "what if's", but you're giving too much credit to one man to change things that dramatically. Only a dictator who loves his people could have prevented this mess. There are so many more variables before Bush, during Bush, and after Bush that were out of Bush's control. If the President really does have that much power, then we need to shrink his power.

Our foriegn policy hasn't changed much under different presidents. The same scenario could have happened under Gore. He likely would have invaded Iraq in 2003. He's in the same group as the Clintons. Hillary voted to attack.

Actually we wouldn't be in Iraq, just cause Hillary voted for it, doesn't mean al gore would've made a push for an Iraq war. There never would've been a vote for the Iraq war had al gore been Pres. Al gore was such a part of the Clintons that he did everything he could in the 2000 campaign to distance himself from the Clintons.

[BroncoBeavis]

Originally Posted by TonyR

I partly agree, they aren't faultless. But at the same time you have to consider that they were going off of the false information that team Cheney created and propagated.

The Clintons? R U Serious? You do realize that until January 2001, the Clintons OWNED the intelligence apparatuses.

Read the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, or any number of Clinton WMD statements/condemnations from around the same time. Then tell me how they just didn't know any better and had the wool pulled over their eyes by the Governor of Texas.

[Rohirrim]

Originally Posted by BroncoBeavis

A corollary human failing is one where a person believes everything in the world would've been improved if only their own personal preferences had been followed.

Most of your post is a shining example.

I made a logical argument. You, on the other hand, have nothing. As usual.

[BroncoBeavis]

Originally Posted by Rohirrim

I made a logical argument. You, on the other hand, have nothing. As usual.

Argument? Read more like a laundry list of cliched memes to me.

But to each his own I guess.

[TonyR]

Originally Posted by BroncoBeavis

Then tell me how they just didn't know any better and had the wool pulled over their eyes by the Governor of Texas.

It wasn't "the Governor of Texas" doing the wool pulling dummy. It was the Cheney/Wolfowitz/Rumsfeld show. And if you think they were letting the Clintons in on what they had going on while they were running things then I have some swamp land in Florida you might be interested in.

[bronco militia]

http://www.people-press.org/2013/02/...the-survey-59/

[BroncoBeavis]

Originally Posted by TonyR

I partly agree, they aren't faultless. But at the same time you have to consider that they were going off of the false information that team Cheney created and propagated.

"In the next century, the community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now - a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists, drug traffickers, or organized criminals who travel the world among us unnoticed. If we fail to respond today, Saddam, and all those who would follow in his footsteps, will be emboldened tomorrow by the knowledge that they can act with impunity, even in the face of a clear message from the United Nations Security Council, and clear evidence of a weapons of mass destruction program."

President Clinton. 1998, while George W was Governor of Texas. Tricky Dick Cheney was enjoying fine stogies at Halliburton HQ and Donald was semi-retired.

[Rohirrim]

Originally Posted by BroncoBeavis

President Clinton. 1998, while George W was Governor of Texas. Tricky Dick Cheney was enjoying fine stogies at Halliburton HQ and Donald was semi-retired.

Man, you should really just stop posting. You're an embarrassment.

Vice President Dick Cheney is a founding member of PNAC, along with Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Defense Policy Board chairman Richard Perle. Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz is the ideological father of the group. Bruce Jackson, a PNAC director, served as a Pentagon official for Ronald Reagan before leaving government service to take a leading position with the weapons manufacturer Lockheed Martin.
http://www.informationclearinghouse....rticle1665.htm

The year was 1997.

[Rohirrim]

Judging by recent interviews Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz gave to a handful of media outlets during the past week, the short answer is yes, the public was misled into believing Iraq posed an imminent threat to the United States. Both admit that the war with Iraq was planned two days after the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001.

Read more: http://www.utne.com/2003-08-01/Wolfo...#ixzz2LfkfrERz

[BroncoBeavis]

Originally Posted by Rohirrim

Man, you should really just stop posting. You're an embarrassment.

Herpy Derp

Vice President Dick Cheney is a founding member of PNAC, along with Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Defense Policy Board chairman Richard Perle. Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz is the ideological father of the group. Bruce Jackson, a PNAC director, served as a Pentagon official for Ronald Reagan before leaving government service to take a leading position with the weapons manufacturer Lockheed Martin.
http://www.informationclearinghouse....rticle1665.htm

The year was 1997.

Informationclearinghouse? Did you get that link from Gaff?

Anywho, I'm not sure what you're limply trying to establish here. The point is that nobody can argue that the Clintons were deceived into believing the WMD justifications for war, when they were the ones who laid all the necessary groundwork for that justification just a few years earlier.