You just admitted that you don’t know he’s a liar, yet you are calling him a liar. That’s one of the things we mean by mudslinging.
I don’t know if Obama is handling this well or not, because, honestly, once I figured out what was actually happening in each case, I didn’t see any controversy to be keeping track of. I personally can’t understand how a reasonable person thinks there is any scandal going on.
But people need to stop acting like this doesn’t matter. Obama is not just someone who is ineligible for election. He is the effective head of the Democratic party. Any bad stuff about him gets carried over to the 2016 Democratic candidate. Just like McCain got all of Bush’s problems.
CNN’s numbers not changing just tells me that Obama’s fans don’t care about his intimidation of journalists, his use of the federal government as a patronage machine, or other ridiculous overreaches of autocratic power. I already knew this, though. It still says a lot more about his supporters than about “scandal monger lies” or whether the underlying actions are right.
You should see what people are talking about outside of Obama Internet Defense Squad convention threads, it’s really something. How much longer is “no Democrat is capable of doing anything wrong and the rest of the world is just liars” tenable?
See? Things you believe are happening that have no basis in reality. There’s a difference between “people are lying about Obama” and “no Democrat is capable of doing anything wrong”. Come back when you grasp the difference.
On the morning news, we heard that Governor Rick will let us know if he’s running for reelection on July 1st; rumor has it he’ll try for the presidency again, instead. More material for The Daily Show! Will he run against the loathsome Ted Cruz, who has offended even his fellow Republicans?
This Texan will gladly criticize Democrats–many have earned it. But, like most urban Texans, I’ll never vote for a Republican.
Oh, those Obama “scandals” are overblown. Why are they so worried? He can’t get another term.
They’re worried he’ll accomplish something, which is why pretty much all they’ve been doing is obstructing every bill, every appointment, every budget they can. The more successful he is, the bigger his coattails in 2016.
As Nate Silver reported, the decline is small enough that statistical variation could also be a factor. And in the cite you gave the couple of pols against Obama are so out of the pack that I have to be skeptical here like the Washington Post reported.
I do take into consideration the odd push polling behavior of CNN of recently, but as even Silver put it, it is more likely that criticism of the democrats is a part of that slight drop.
Mind you, I would had been disappointed if no change would had come regarding the NSA issue, but as Pew research put it, it did not register a lot.
It remains an issue that both parties are involved and as pointed by others: congress approval, that is traditionally lower, is even worse now.
Excellent points. And I may add, if Obama must devote so much of his time to responding to the dozen active trumped up scandals there is less time paid to his real job of being President of the greatest nation on earth.
When officials start apologizing for things and when it gets sufficient traction with the public to become headline news is usually the metric I use.
But it IS about the definition of a scandal, since you are using your own to define what is or isn’t one.
Again, you seem fixated on the assumption that Obama has to be involved or in the wrong for something to be a scandal. As has been repeatedly pointed out to you, a scandal doesn’t have to involve Obama to become a scandal…it doesn’t have to involve the Administration at all in fact to become a scandal. It doesn’t even have to be true…there have been and will be in the future public scandals that were completely false or incorrect. None of this has anything to do with whether something is a scandal in the public’s collective mind.
No, I don’t believe this should be called ‘an Obama scandal’, since he’s simply continuing policies started under a previous president. That’s not going to make some left wingers or liberal Democrats (right winger types are already mad at him for being black and getting elected, so were unlikely to poll in his favor before) automatically happy about it, however, since they made a lot of assumptions about what Obama was or wasn’t going to do both when he was initially elected and re-elected. Many are disillusioned by things he’s done or not done that don’t meet their expectations, and the NSA thing is just one more on the list for some people.
If Obama responded to them in an upfront and transparent way, the public would move on, assuming transparency doesn’t implicate him. What he’s been doing with these scandals has been basically taking the 5th.
So I have cited what you asked. What now?
On the Bush Library Thread I asked for a cite to support the defense of Adaher’s position that Saddam Hussen did not meet a deadline to disarm, so Bush was justified to invade Iraq.
I’ve asked all for backup on that unsupported claim and all have left the thread.
Dude, I’m trying to be patient here, but your cite basically shows that it’s a combination of things, not just the NSA scandal. Did you READ it?? Did you read the first line you quoted??
[QUOTE=]
A new CNN poll shows President Obama’s approval ratings taking a nose dive in recent weeks, a development that is probably not unrelated to the deluge of second-term scandals that have taken over the media.
[/QUOTE]
My emphasis. It’s not unrelated to the deluge of second-term scandals that have taken over the media. So, you haven’t got anything except your unsupported conjecture that it’s solely or even mainly due to the NSA issue, which is what you claimed and what I asked you to back up.
Why would I back up an assertion that Bush was justified to invade Iraq when I don’t think he WAS justified?? And why would I deal with that here in any case, since this thread isn’t about Bush, the Iraq war or that other thread??
Perhaps you should consider that people didn’t respond to you because they were tired of your horseshit, your pedantry, your constant shifting of goal posts and your ridiculous semantic digressions. Just a thought. But here, I started a thread just for you.
It’s all excuse making. The fundamental issue is that the President’s popularity is going down because he’s no longer perceived as honest and trustworthy.
Does that mean he’s guilty of something? No. But we’re not trying the President criminally. There are a lot of things that have been coming out about this administration and the President’s responses have been “I don’t know nuthin’. It’s someone else’s fault.” That will tend to cause voters to question his trustworthiness, and his competence to boot. Thus the declining approval ratings.
It doesn’t help that this is a pattern of behavior for him. People who are naturally inclined not to like him, like me, saw it early, but eventually people who aren’t disposed to disliking him notice too. Back in 2008, he had several campaign controversies, and every single time he blamed his staff. He’s a professional buck passer and the public is now starting to pick up on it.
You do realize that you should say exactly that for congress no? As it is the case the pols show them going to less popular levels than getting ring worm.
And no, as I pointed before the current issue has bipartisan support to continue, and we should continue to criticize all.