Obama is the worst president since WWII

[Nova Land]

... I suggest that you correct the date you mentioned because it is 40 years off.

Ah, thanks! Not sure how I could have missed that.

Apologies for the error. It was 2008 when AUP predicted low ratings for Obama, not 1968.

Despite my confusion, I still think the 2008 AUP thread may be of interest to folks reading this thread.

 

[Upchurch]

Except of course when they elect the candidate of your choice, then we never hear a word about the stupid public.

You're really clinging to that straw man. Why is it so important to you?

Here's your chance though, tell me about the stupid public and their poor critical thinking skills when then elected BO in 08 and again in 12 and tell me about the stupid public when they elected Clinton in 92 and 96. Then tell me about the poor critical thinking skills when BO's approval rating was at 69%.

I'm not aware of anything that connects a person's critical thinking ability to their political affiliation or how they vote.

 

[kookbreaker]

Ah, thanks! Not sure how I could have missed that.

Apologies for the error. It was 2008 when AUP predicted low ratings for Obama, not 1968.

Despite my confusion, I still think the 2008 AUP thread may be of interest to folks reading this thread.

Do you really want to go there? Last time we brought up a thread from 2008 it was some folks praising Sarah Palin to the rafters because she was obviously such a great politician.

 

[Neally]

I'm not aware of anything that connects a person's critical thinking ability to their political affiliation or how they vote.

If, as you said, "I think we're all pretty aware of how low the general public's critical thinking skills are." then that obviously is reflected in any decision they make, include voting. So the public was just as stupid when they elected
BO in 12 as when they elected Bush in 04?

 

[Grizzly Bear]

You seem to be confused about what has actually taken place.

Very confused.

I'm not sure what you mean by this. Are you responding to the 3 cited quotes? If so I can understand the 2nd one regarding career politicians as accurate. Obama made so many promises about transparency and differentiating himself from the old corrupt Washington politics that he literally projected himself as a revolutionary.

Ultimately I predicted it to be little more than putting lipstick on a pig. And his actions have indicated he's leaned more towards acting the politician role than differentiating himself from his predecessors substantially in that regard. In some ways I could understand the how the poll results might have developed, worst POTUS since WWII? Not sure if the results' that clear cut, but raising the bar to stratosphere and flopping that to average performance is a quite enough of a party pooper.

 

[Mike!]

If, as you said, "I think we're all pretty aware of how low the general public's critical thinking skills are." then that obviously is reflected in any decision they make, include voting. So the public was just as stupid when they elected
BO in 12 as when they elected Bush in 04?

Well, keep in mind, there's been a whole new influx of stupid to replace the old stupid that has since died off too.
Someone once said, the two most common things in the whole Universe are hydrogen and stupid, and not necessarily in that order. Or something to that effect anyway. So, there's never a shortage of stupid.

 

[sir drinks-a-lot]

Someone once said, the two most common things in the whole Universe are hydrogen and stupid, and not necessarily in that order. Or something to that effect anyway. So, there's never a shortage of stupid.

Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former.
Albert Einstein

 

[johnny karate]

If that's directed at me, then I have to disagree.

I'm not sure what you mean by this.

I honestly can't believe that it has explained to some people that one random popularity poll has absolutely no bearing on Obama's place in history.

 

[Upchurch]

If, as you said, "I think we're all pretty aware of how low the general public's critical thinking skills are." then that obviously is reflected in any decision they make, include voting.

It makes sense, but people can also be selective in what they apply critical think to as well. I think it's probably a more complex question than you are making it out to be.

So the public was just as stupid when they elected
BO in 12 as when they elected Bush in 04?

Now, let's clear something up. I do not equate a low level of critical thinking skills with being stupid. Critical thinking, as I said, is a skill and a skill can be learned. Stupid people can lack critical thinking skills and smart people can lack critical thinking skills. Again, I think you are oversimplifying a more complex question.

 

[Neally]

It makes sense, but people can also be selective in what they apply critical think to as well. I think it's probably a more complex question than you are making it out to be.

Ah okay, so they don't use their critical skills when they voted for Bush but did when they voted for BO?

Now, let's clear something up. I do not equate a low level of critical thinking skills with being stupid. Critical thinking, as I said, is a skill and a skill can be learned. Stupid people can lack critical thinking skills and smart people can lack critical thinking skills. Again, I think you are oversimplifying a more complex question.

More sophistry after your position fails, but have it your way: So the public was just as poor with their critical thinking skills when they elected BO in 12 as when they elected Bush in 04?

I honestly can't believe that it has explained to some people that one random popularity poll has absolutely no bearing on Obama's place in history.

Do expand on the scientifically validated objective criteria for "place in history" since it has nothing to do with people's opinions.

 

[Regnad Kcin]

Except of course when they elect the candidate of your choice, then we never hear a word about the stupid public.

Here's your chance though, tell me about the stupid public and their poor critical thinking skills when then elected BO in 08 and again in 12 and tell me about the stupid public when they elected Clinton in 92 and 96. Then tell me about the poor critical thinking skills when BO's approval rating was at 69%.

LOL! You've just confirmed my translation: The public is stupid when they disagree with your position. When they don't, nothing is said or they are congratulated on their perception.

In case you missed it, I said both sides play this same game.

Your histrionics notwithstanding, there are two facets to this conversation which should not be lumped together:

- The American public who selected Mr. Obama over Mr. McCain and then Mr. Romney in general elections during the (relative to both years) present time
- The American public who gauge Mr. Obama, a person whose presence is being felt daily, in comparison to men who have receded in the public consciousness - people whose accomplishments and flaws are bound to be more abstract as well as unrelatable, if much known to some of the respondents at all

The populace may or may not reveal their general intelligence with respect to the former - especially considering the assessment of candidates is going to be heavily influenced by evolving circumstances and passionate wish-fulfillment. But it can safely be said that long-demonstrated historic knowledge across the board, coupled with a certain rose-colored-glasses effect, is not going to strongly support the proposition that polls such as the one we're discussing are buoyed by a reliable amount of subjective intellectual brilliance.

 

[Upchurch]

Ah okay, so they don't use their critical skills when they voted for Bush but did when they voted for BO?

No matter how many times you repeat your strawman, it is still just a strawman.

 

[Neally]

No matter how many times you repeat your strawman, it is still just a strawman.

You say the general public's critical thinking skills are low. That's not a strawman.

It's a simple question: Was the general public just as poor with their critical thinking skills when they elected BO in 12 as when they elected Bush in 04?

 

[maxpower1227]

You say the general public's critical thinking skills are low. That's not a strawman.

It's a simple question: Was the general public just as poor with their critical thinking skills when they elected BO in 12 as when they elected Bush in 04?

I don't know why you keep this up. Yes, they likely were as bad. But for the record, W was re-elected by the slimmest of margins in '04, and likely only because Karl Rove put gay marriage bans on the ballot in many key states to bring out bigoted homophobes who would then vote for Bush. Obama won election and re-election in landslides compared to either of Bush's victories.

ETA: It's also worth mentioning that we have dismally low voter turnout compared to most other democracies, and our elections are often decided by low-information "swing" voters. I don't know if it's fair to judge the intelligence of the population as a whole by the way that voting bloc happens to be leaning at a particular time.

 

[Upchurch]

You say the general public's critical thinking skills are low. That's not a strawman.

But that's not the argument you keep setting as being mine.

It's a simple question: Was the general public just as poor with their critical thinking skills when they elected BO in 12 as when they elected Bush in 04?

I imagine it was not much different, no. That has nothing to do with people's level of intelligence.

 

[Neally]

I don't know why you keep this up. Yes, they likely were as bad.

I imagine it was not much different, no.

Fair enough, and the critical thinking skills were the same for those 69% people that approved of BO as those 25% that approved of Bush's?

 

[Upchurch]

Fair enough, and the critical thinking skills were the same for those 69% people that approved of BO as those 25% that approved of Bush's?

On average, it they might be, but you are asking questions on specific samples based on a generalization of the entire population. I just don't think we have the data to answer the questions you're asking. You're over simplifying a complex system.

 

[Neally]

On average, it they might be, but you are asking questions on specific samples based on a generalization of the entire population. I just don't think we have the data to answer the questions you're asking. You're over simplifying a complex system.

But you do have the data to assert, "I think we're all pretty aware of how low the general public's critical thinking skills are." ?

Looking forward to getting that data so that we can compare the sampling methodology of Gallup to yours.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

I honestly can't believe that it has explained to some people that one random popularity poll has absolutely no bearing on Obama's place in history.

You're worrying about explaining a concept for which I've made no claim on. You were vague in your post, so I decided to:

A) ask for clarification on what you responded to
B) and then explain one of the reasons I thought the poll's results could have been derived from.

It's alright if you don't agree with me when I stated my opinion, or if you felt the second part was or wasn't relevant to you... but please, if you're going to respond in kind, at least read the post, or better yet don't be afraid to ask for clarification before giving an opinion on something you're obviously not clear on. The poll results BTW could also be derived from bias of the respondents... really not a concern of mine since the poll doesn't make much difference to me

As far as you're contention is concerned, I don't care about the correlation between an opinion poll and his place in history. I just don't approve of his policies, and the interpretation I gave about the poll results is just a reflection of my own opinion of his direction. If you think I'm beholden to approval ratings viz his "place in history" still I would then suggest that you're confused and probably should ask for the clarity. Honestly I don't I don't know if I can explain this any more simply.

 

[johnny karate]

Do expand on the scientifically validated objective criteria for "place in history" since it has nothing to do with people's opinions.

Gosh Neally, I think a president's place in history might be better determined by presidential historians rather than the general public.

Do you disagree?