73% think our country is headed in the wrong direction

[Remodeling Maidiac]

73% think our country is headed in the wrong direction

It is.

And putting a republican in the WH will only keep it heading in the wrong direction.

In the interest of fairness, putting a leader of either side in the WH seems like a fucked idea to me, we need a centrist now.

Got any names?

 

[kaz]

The problem with polls like this is that they don't say anything about what direction the people would LIKE us to be going in.

There are more than two possible answers to that question, you know.

Exactly what you argued when Bush got those polls. Sure you did...

 

[Photonic]

It is.

And putting a republican in the WH will only keep it heading in the wrong direction.

In the interest of fairness, putting a leader of either side in the WH seems like a fucked idea to me, we need a centrist now.

Got any names?

Are there any? They all seem extremist in both ways to me right now.

 

[California Girl]

The problem with polls like this is that they don't say anything about what direction the people would LIKE us to be going in.

There are more than two possible answers to that question, you know.

And yet the direction Obama chose happened to be the wrong one.

Next....

Obama: Health Care, tax cut for Middle Class, get out of Iraq

Republicans: War, Free ride for the wealthy,cut Medicare, end Social Security. more corporate welfare. more pollution.

I'll take Obama's direcction.

Of course you would..... you have absolutely no concept of reality.

 

[Douger]

Duh Cuntree started in the wrong direction. Genocide is not the way to construct a nation-goobermint.

 

[California Girl]

For a fact, huh? Cool. I assume you have some legitimate link to unbiased research to back that up.

I think I would be fully justified in saying, "Do your own research and don't expect me to spoon-feed you."

But no. While there isn't any "research" to substantiate what I said, you can verify it for yourself in a little bit of browsing here:

Democratic Underground

and here:

Daily Kos :: News Community Action

and here:

Occupy Together*|* DISCUSS

Just do a search on any of those sites for "Obama" and you'll find a great deal of criticism of the president from the left. It's no secret and it shouldn't come as any surprise.

I asked for unbiased research and you give me DU, the Daily Kos and Occupy Together? Am I now supposed to take you seriously?



When you said you 'know for a fact', I thought you meant an actual fact.... not your opinion.

Moron.

 

[Photonic]

Obama has fucked me just as much as every other politician has so far. As an inventor I've had so much trouble attempting to get funding after all our research that we have nearly given up until the economy stabilizes.

We plan to leave the country soon if conditions do not improve to allow companies to invest in our project. I love this country, but I'm not going to go down with this ship. Our work benefits all humans, and it isn't fair if it gets destroyed because of politics.

 

[Dragon]

Exactly what you argued when Bush got those polls. Sure you did...

I joined this site this year. I know it seems like forever, but . . .

 

[Dragon]

I asked for unbiased research and you give me DU, the Daily Kos and Occupy Together? Am I now supposed to take you seriously?

That depends. Do you know how to read? If you do -- and if you took the time to do it -- you will know that I'm inviting you to browse those sites because they contain a lot of criticism of Obama from the left.

I think posters on those sites can be trusted as far as expressing their own opinions is concerned, don't you? And their own opinions is EXACTLY what we're talking about, is it not?

When you said you 'know for a fact', I thought you meant an actual fact.... not your opinion.

It is an ACTUAL FACT that liberal discussion sites are full of criticism of President Obama from the left. You may verify that ACTUAL FACT for yourself if you are so inclined, or you may take my word for it.

 

[California Girl]

I asked for unbiased research and you give me DU, the Daily Kos and Occupy Together? Am I now supposed to take you seriously?

That depends. Do you know how to read? If you do -- and if you took the time to do it -- you will know that I'm inviting you to browse those sites because they contain a lot of criticism of Obama from the left.

I think posters on those sites can be trusted as far as expressing their own opinions is concerned, don't you? And their own opinions is EXACTLY what we're talking about, is it not?

When you said you 'know for a fact', I thought you meant an actual fact.... not your opinion.

It is an ACTUAL FACT that liberal discussion sites are full of criticism of President Obama from the left. You may verify that ACTUAL FACT for yourself if you are so inclined, or you may take my word for it.

Still not actually a 'fact' though, is it? No. It's opinion. You said you knew it for a fact. Facts are based on solid scientific research. In fact, there are no absolute facts in politics. There are opinions... those of value are based on some kind of qualification. Take economics for an example. People quote economists and think that because a qualified, experienced academic economist says it, it is fact. It is not. It is opinion. Facts are not opinions and opinions are not fact. Simply put.... you can not 'know it for a fact'. You can assume it based on your observations - but that is not a fact.

 

[percysunshine]

I polled my dog just now. He is 100% in favor of getting fed roast beef for dinner. He is only 73% in favor of getting dog food again, so I guess that is what is on the menu.

 

[Dragon]

Still not actually a 'fact' though, is it? No. It's opinion.

LOL it's a fact ABOUT opinion. Thus, reading expressions of those opinions amounts to verification of those opinions.

You said you knew it for a fact. Facts are based on solid scientific research.

Not necessarily. Sometimes they can be based on things simple enough you can see them with your own eyes, for which no scientific research is necessary.

While we're on the subject, let's review exactly what I said, shall we? Just to make sure we know and agreie what we're talking about:

"I know for a fact that a substantial portion of the electorate disapproves of Obama because he is TOO CONSERVATIVE."

Now, you might reasonably ask what constitutes a "substantial portion" of the electorate, and it's true that I was vague on that. But instead you plowed forward as if it was clear what that meant, and asked for evidence. I gave it to you: not a study, not scientific research, but raw data in the form of many many voters (or they say they're voters anyway) criticizing President Obama for being too conservative.

This is proof positive that there are people who disapprove of Obama because he is too conservative. Whether it is proof that they constitute a "substantial portion" of the electorate depends on exactly what that means.

But here's another bit of data for you:

http://www.knowyourcare.org/pdf/may-2011-poll.pdf

"Support for healthcare reform is consistently understated by polls – 10 percent of voters both do not think the current law goes far enough and do not support the ACA. Support for the ACA currently stands at 42% (with 50% opposed), but that does not take into account that among the 31% of voters who feel that the law does not go far enough, a third do not currently support it. That translates to 10% of the total electorate that does not support the law but also doesn’t believe that it goes far enough. Overall, a plurality of 47% of voters believe that the new healthcare law made the right amount of changes (16%) or does not go far enough (31%), compared to 43% who say that it goes too far."

So on this issue at least, Obamacare, which many would consider Obama's signature accomplishment of his presidency so far, 31% of the people seem to think that it does not go far enough, and 10% actually oppose the ACA because of that. So, depending on how you interpret these responses, we have at least 10% of the voters and arguably as many as 31%, who oppose Obama from the left.

Would you agree that 10% of the voters, let alone 31%, constitutes a "substantial portion"?

 

[kaz]

Exactly what you argued when Bush got those polls. Sure you did...

I joined this site this year. I know it seems like forever, but . . .

But you can't answer the question...

 

[Moonglow]

The problem with polls like this is that they don't say anything about what direction the people would LIKE us to be going in.

There are more than two possible answers to that question, you know.

And yet the direction Obama chose happened to be the wrong one.

Next....

Is this the same bunch you accuse of voting for Obama?

 

[Douger]

27% ARE COMPLETE MORONS ?

 

[Haplo]

I know for a fact that a substantial portion of the electorate disapproves of Obama because he is TOO CONSERVATIVE."

So, you're saying that Obama will also face a primary challenge this coming year?

Yeah, that'll happen.

 

[percysunshine]

I know for a fact that a substantial portion of the electorate disapproves of Obama because he is TOO CONSERVATIVE."

So, you're saying that Obama will also face a primary challenge this coming year?

Yeah, that'll happen.

If I had a spare few million dollars, I would run a dead person who had name recognition against Obama in the primary. TV ads...movie stars .. marching bands and flags..

Would be funny as heck.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Still not actually a 'fact' though, is it? No. It's opinion.

LOL it's a fact ABOUT opinion. Thus, reading expressions of those opinions amounts to verification of those opinions.

You said you knew it for a fact. Facts are based on solid scientific research.

Not necessarily. Sometimes they can be based on things simple enough you can see them with your own eyes, for which no scientific research is necessary.

While we're on the subject, let's review exactly what I said, shall we? Just to make sure we know and agreie what we're talking about:

"I know for a fact that a substantial portion of the electorate disapproves of Obama because he is TOO CONSERVATIVE."

Now, you might reasonably ask what constitutes a "substantial portion" of the electorate, and it's true that I was vague on that. But instead you plowed forward as if it was clear what that meant, and asked for evidence. I gave it to you: not a study, not scientific research, but raw data in the form of many many voters (or they say they're voters anyway) criticizing President Obama for being too conservative.

This is proof positive that there are people who disapprove of Obama because he is too conservative. Whether it is proof that they constitute a "substantial portion" of the electorate depends on exactly what that means.

But here's another bit of data for you:

http://www.knowyourcare.org/pdf/may-2011-poll.pdf

"Support for healthcare reform is consistently understated by polls – 10 percent of voters both do not think the current law goes far enough and do not support the ACA. Support for the ACA currently stands at 42% (with 50% opposed), but that does not take into account that among the 31% of voters who feel that the law does not go far enough, a third do not currently support it. That translates to 10% of the total electorate that does not support the law but also doesn’t believe that it goes far enough. Overall, a plurality of 47% of voters believe that the new healthcare law made the right amount of changes (16%) or does not go far enough (31%), compared to 43% who say that it goes too far."

So on this issue at least, Obamacare, which many would consider Obama's signature accomplishment of his presidency so far, 31% of the people seem to think that it does not go far enough, and 10% actually oppose the ACA because of that. So, depending on how you interpret these responses, we have at least 10% of the voters and arguably as many as 31%, who oppose Obama from the left.

Would you agree that 10% of the voters, let alone 31%, constitutes a "substantial portion"?

What a bunch if gibberish.

How's that for a fact finding mission.

 

[ScienceRocks]

since before 1964

 

[Avatar4321]

Probably because it's obvious we are.