President Obama's Gallup approval rating among liberal Democrats for November 14th-20th is 84%.

[LoZoccolo]

[lamp_shade]

1. 2nd rec

:hi:

[Tarheel_Dem]

3. Being Unrec'd as we speak, just rec'd it back to +1.

:popcorn:

[AmericaIsGreat]

47. sorry, replied to your post nm

[City Lights]

2. Hooray! eom

[Kahuna]

4. but...but..but...Are they PROGRESSIVE liberals?

:sarcasm:

[Number23]

103. Ha! Between this and the story that the president's support from his base is every bit as solid

as it was in 2008 (and you know that it will get even STRONGER closer to the election), this thread is really gonna hurt some tender feelings.

[Kahuna]

108. There will be blankie clutching and thumb sucking, fer sure.

:rofl:

[Number23]

127. See: About halfway down this very thread

You can hear the wails of impotent rage a thousand miles away. :rofl:

[Kahuna]

135. Right after I made my post I saw the typical..Those aren't REeeeALLY liberals

though..... :eyes:

[Number23]

141. Half the posts in each of these threads question the liberal "credentials" of the people polled

It is truly the hallmark of someone on the fringe trying DESPERATELY to convince themselves that they represent some type of majority.

[Rex]

5. Pretty solid numbers there.

[lamp_shade]

6. There were "subtle" cheers here when it dropped from 83 to 80. I'm loving this. So's he > >

[Kahuna]

109. Nice pic

:fistbump:

[flamingdem]

7. yahooo

nice to see he's still in favor as he should be

[Angry Dragon]

8. ..............

:popcorn:

[EOTE]

9. So what does that prove other than the bulk of

liberal Democrats don't know what it means to be liberal?

[TheWraith]

10. That argument was ridiculous when it first came up. And it hasn't aged well.

Some people just refuse to get over themselves long enough to realize that they aren't either the arbiters of what defines being a liberal, and/or they are not representative of what all liberals think.

[EOTE]

12. OK, let me just check my definition of liberal then.

Apparently it means escalating wars in third world countries, ignoring violence against your own country's citizens and transferring massive amounts of wealth to banks only to have them fuck us over. Sure is a really shitty definition of "liberal" if you ask me.

[TheWraith]

17. It would suck living in a country where that had happened. Fortunately, we don't.

Although apparently your definition of "escalating wars" is ending one war and beginning the withdrawal from another, and "massive wealth transfer to banks" means managing the TARP program so well that it turned a profit for taxpayers, as well as passing new Wall Street reforms to help prevent another crisis.

[EOTE]

37. There has been an escalation in Afghanistan.

I don't care what your definition of the word is, sending in thousands of additional troops is an escalation. And hundreds of billions of dollars were sent directly to banks with hardly any strings attacked. Now that they're no longer in hot water, they've promptly resumed fucking us over again. And you didn't even address my third point. Obama is remaining utterly silent while protesters are being brutalized. Ahhh, liberalism. If that's "liberal", I don't want anything to do with it.

[TheWraith]

44. Again, you're simply wrong on the facts.

The US has begun withdrawing troops from Afghanistan, and the money used to stabilize banks was all reclaimed by the government with interest. Your argument depends on completely ignoring those facts.

[EOTE]

50. Apparently numbers are very hard for you.

You seem to be ignoring everything I've said. Here, this handy chart should make it much easier for you.

http://afghanistan.blogs.cnn.com/2011/06/22/chart-u-s-troop-levels-over-the-years/

Take a look at the beginning of '09. See? That's a pretty massive increase, huh? I guess if one were to ignore reality completely, it would be easy to miss that. Are you still going to tell me that there wasn't a massive increase in troop levels in Afghanistan?

As for the money, I didn't say that it hadn't been repaid, it sure as hell should have been. But you'd think that if the government intervened and stopped their entire unraveling, there would have been more strings in place to prevent us getting further screwed over by them. Well, you'd think that if the government wasn't owned by the banks in the first place.

Hey, keep trying, though.

[TheWraith]

72. Guardian: "Afghanistan withdrawal: Barack Obama says 33,000 troops will leave next year"

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jun/23/afghanistan-withdrawal-barack-obama-troops

[Name removed]

74. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[TheWraith]

75. Actually, you're asserting something which I never said in order to move the goalposts.

I said that the US has begun withdrawing from Afghanistan, which is the undeniable fact. You're trying to assert I said something that I never did, in order to cover up that you are wrong.

[Name removed]

84. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[TheWraith]

85. No, actually I never said anything of the kind. I said the US is withdrawing from Afghanistan.

Which is, again, happening right now and will be continuing until the US troops are gone.

[Name removed]

88. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[TheWraith]

92. As I said, your definition of "escalating wars" apparently means "withdrawing from them."

Seeing as how the US is out of Iraq in a few weeks, and leaving Afghanistan. Your desperation to find something, anything to cling on to avoid admitting that Obama is ending the wars is rather silly, and leads you to some amusingly extreme readings of a simple ironic statement.

[EOTE]

96. But troop levels have increased significantly under Obama.

"Non combat" troops are still in Iraq, and will be for quite some time to come. The only thing is that there's really no way for anyone to discern these non-combat troops from military ones. And troop levels in Afghanistan are about 50% higher than they were under bush. Regardless of what Obama says will be done next year, three years with levels 50% higher than bush is fucking unforgivable. This is a war we never should have been apart of. You said there was no escalation. That's a lie and you know it. Of course you're completely willing to ignore that. You think this president is a liberal. What a joke.\

On edit: non-military -> non-combat

[EOTE]

97. Troop levels in Afghanistan rose dramatically under Obama.

Is that cool with you? At first, you denied that was the case. And now you're making excuses for it. I know you're just learning about this right now, but I have to ask, are you cool with this?

[Number23]

106. "You said there was not a surge or escalation."

Can you find the specific post where Wraith said that?

[EOTE]

116. Yes, post 17.

And he's been asserting as much ever since. He said I was lying when I mentioned that troop levels in Afghanistan rose under Obama. They rose by a significant margin.

[Number23]

124. No, what he said was this

"Although apparently your definition of "escalating wars" is ending one war and beginning the withdrawal from another"

which is not even close to what you're saying that he said. Do you think that no one but you can see what is being written on this thread?

Edit: Just saw your other posts in this thread. Not only are you completely wrong (the war in Iraq is over; troop numbers in Afghanistan went up YEARS ago but are now being withdrawn with the stated purpose that that war will also be over soon) but you are the type of person that won't admit it. So you just keep carrying on doing whatever it is that you think you are doing in this thread.

[EOTE]

155. He's saying the war is being ended, not escalated. That's entirely untrue.

I don't judge a man by what he says, I judge him by what he's done. What he's done is increase troop levels in Afghanistan by 50%. Troops aren't being withdrawn now at all, they're still around 50% greater than when Bush left office. That's not progress, that's a miserable failure.

[EOTE]

69. Crickets? Hard to face the facts, huh?

You can go on believing that Obama has done a halfway decent job in Afghanistan. Those in the reality based community aren't quite so good at ignoring reality.

[progressoid]

42. Ha, that's funny,

"Although apparently your definition of "escalating wars" is ending one war and beginning the withdrawal from another"

---If your definition of "ending one" means doing what was already mandated by the previous president and "beginning to withdrawal from the other" means first escalating it by 30000 troops and doubling the number of troop deaths.



"managing the TARP program so well that it turned a profit for taxpayers, as well as passing new Wall Street reforms to help prevent another crisis."

---Oh, that must be what all of those OWS people are joyously celebrating every day!!
Happy days are here again!

[Angry Dragon]

123. Then I wait for you to define a liberal and/or what liberals think

[Old and In the Way]

11. Perhaps it means that they know where the real problem lies?

Get a bullet-proof majority of progressive Democrats in the House and Senate and then we'll see whether our "yes we can" hopes have been misplaced.

[EOTE]

13. We had a majority of Democrats in the house and senate.

For two years. It didn't really get us anywhere. I'm quite certain if we ever got that "bullet-proof" majority, all we'd hear is "Just give us a more bullet-proofer majority and we'll FINALLY be able to get something accomplished. You don't really expect us to get anything accomplished with only a 60% majority, do you?"

[TheWraith]

15. It didn't get us anywhere? Do you live on the same planet as the rest of us? nt

[EOTE]

39. Lemme see, we got mandatory insurance coverage.

We get forced to purchase insurance which is becoming less and less accessible while hardly getting anything in return. I'd say that was no-harm, no-foul at the very best, an unrepentant screwing at worst. Those two years were a horrendous waste.

[TheWraith]

53. Apparently you've been listening strictly to Republican spin for three years.

Just a few of the other things that President Obama and the Democrats got done during that time:

The expansion of SCHIP health-care program for children worth $33 Billion.
A $20 billion increase for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), formerly known as Food Stamps.
$2 billion in new Neighborhood Stabilization Funds that will allow ailing neighborhoods be kept maintained.
$1.5 billion in Homelessness Prevention Funds to keep people in their homes and prevent homelessness.
$5 billion increase for the Weatherization Assistance Program to help low income families save on their residential energy expenditures by making their homes more energy efficient.
Increased the amount of federal Pell Grant awards so that funds are available to those with less access to have opportunity.
Coverage can’t be denied to children with pre-existing conditions.
Adults up to age 26 can stay on their parents’ health plans.
Free preventive care.
Rescinding coverage is now illegal.
Eliminating lifetime limits on insurance coverage.
$5 billion in immediate federal support to affordable Coverage for the Uninsured with Pre-existing Conditions.
$10 billion investment in Community Health Centers.
Jobs for Main Street Act (2010)injected $27.5 Billion for Highways, $8.4 Billion for Transit into the country’s transportation system to create jobs and spur economic activity.
Signed a sweeping bank-reform bill (the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act)into law
Cut Salaries of 65 Bailout Executives
Signed into law the Fraud Enforcement and Recovery Act to fight fraud in the use of TARP and recovery funds, and to increase accountability for corporate and mortgage frauds.
Signed the Credit Card Accountability, Responsibility and Disclosure Act
A $60 billion investment in renewable and clean energy.
Established EPA regulations which require large U.S. ships to cut soot emissions by 85 percent.
$275 billion dollar housing plan - $75 billion dollars to prevent at-risk mortgage debtors already fallen victim to foreclosures and $200 billion to bring about confidence to offer affordable mortgages and to stability the housing market.
Extended benefits to same-sex partners of federal employees
Signed the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act
Instructed HHS to require any hospital receiving Medicare or Medicaid funds (virtually all hospitals) to allow LGBT visitation rights.
Banned job discrimination based on gender identity throughout the Federal government (the nation's largest employer)
Signed the Ryan White HIV/AIDS Treatment Extension Act and while more funding is needed per the 2012 proposed budget, an increase of $80 million to domestic and global HIV/AIDS programs committed
Extended the Family and Medical Leave Act to cover Gay employees taking unpaid leave to care for their children of same-sex partners
Repealed the Don't Ask, Don't Tell (DADT).
Signed the Health Package For 9/11 Responders bill that puts $4.3 billion into a fund to assist folks that are suffering from problems caused by breathed-in dust and debris during the 9/11 clean up.
The passage of the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act enabling the rights of workers to sue employers over wage discrimination claims.

[EOTE]

55. Wow! So the past 3 years haven't entirely been the RW's wet dream!

It's just been that way for all the issues of major significance. Sorry, I'm not going to give Obama a pass simply because not everything he's passed has been horrendously awful.

[TheWraith]

58. The fact is, you're completely unable to cite facts to back up your claims.

The belief that "all the issues of major significance" somehow went to the right is objectively bullshit, but it's a belief that the right has been solidly attempting to propagandize to the left in order to weaken support for Democrats.

[EOTE]

60. You're the one who's ignoring my facts.

Frankly, those little tossed bones mean nothing compared to the trillions of dollars spent moving money to the wealthiest amongst us and tens of thousands of additional troops. But you ignore those facts because they're not convenient. Still intent to say that there hasn't been a massive troop increase in Afghanistan?

[TheWraith]

65. You make assertions which aren't reality based.

Like the claim that there are mysterious, invisible trillions of dollars being given away to nebulous parties. And again, as I pointed out, the US has begun withdrawing from Afghanistan.

"Afghanistan withdrawal: Barack Obama says 33,000 troops will leave next year"
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jun/23/afghanistan-withdrawal-barack-obama-troops

I guess The Guardian is in on the conspiracy, right?

[Name removed]

68. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[EOTE]

114. Fact, troop levels are around 50% higher in Afghanistan than when Obama took office.

Facts are pesky little things, aren't they?

[EOTE]

66. Hmmmm, facts. Lemme see.

Fact: Obama has sent tens of thousands of additional troops to Afghanistan. This in spite of there never having been legitimate cause to invade Afghanistan as they offered up Bin Laden to the ICC if we agreed to show the evidence against them.

Fact: Obama talked very highly of a "public option", but it was secretly never on the table. He shelved it to garner the support of the insurance industry during a debate that was supposed to reign them in.

Fact: Hundreds of billions of dollars were sent to banks in order to bail them out with absolutely no concessions made on behalf of the banks. Now the banks are doing rather well. Not so for most Americans.

If this is what a "liberal" president does, I want nothing to do with it.

[TheWraith]

70. Three "facts" which are completely false.

"This in spite of there never having been legitimate cause to invade Afghanistan as they offered up Bin Laden to the ICC if we agreed to show the evidence against them."

No they did not. It's a myth that the Taliban offered to turn over Bin Laden.

"Obama talked very highly of a "public option", but it was secretly never on the table. He shelved it to garner the support of the insurance industry during a debate that was supposed to reign them in."

Again, totally false.

Washington Post: "Obama never secretly killed the public option. It’s a myth."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/post/obama-never-secretly-killed-the-public-option-its-a-myth/2011/11/17/gIQAZQt0UN_blog.html

"Hundreds of billions of dollars were sent to banks in order to bail them out with absolutely no concessions made on behalf of the banks."

You conveniently ignore the fact that TARP was passed long before Obama even won the election, let alone was President. Kind of how the right keeps shifting blame onto Obama for things Bush did.

[EOTE]

76. Wow, incredibly sad. You are aware that TARP was BEFORE the bank bailout, right?

You know, the 1 trillion dollar bailout? If you can't even get these simple facts right, how can you hope to have a mature conversation?

[slay]

81. Don't worry EOTE - you are completely right in your position

but there are "certain people" who will never admit anything negative about Obama ever. I think you are seeing that right now.

[EOTE]

99. Thanks, but it's so sad to see "liberal" bastardized to such an extent.

It doesn't mean supporting "democrats" no matter how republican they act. I'm most likely going to be sitting out the next election, or supporting a third party if there's a decent one running. If a republican gets elected, then at least a republican will start taking the blame for all these republican policies. Having a democrat enact this extremely RW legislation and then the democratic party getting the blame for it is completely unacceptable to me.

[TheWraith]

89. You still can't post a single link in support of this supposed trillion dollar bailout.

And in that light it's highly ironic that you want to accuse me of not accepting "reality" in the form of your unsubstantiated claims, while clinging to your own long debunked claims.

[EOTE]

94. You still can't admit that troop levels increased significantly under Obama.

And I'm sorry you appear to have been asleep for the past 3 years and missed the trillions of dollars of tax payer money gone toward "trickle down" economics. Just continue getting pissed on. Just don't get angry at me when I laugh at you. No matter how much you insist, it's not raining.

[treestar]

118. No he does not

:hi:

[EOTE]

119. So in your world, banks did not receive $100s of billions and Afghanistan did NOT get

an additional 30K troops. Nice to know I live in the reality-based world. Must be much nicer to believe whatever's convenient for you at the time.

[treestar]

121. In my world, as Wraith already explained

The banks have paid back the tarp money and Afghanistan is being drawn down.

[EOTE]

122. Do you think TARP money is all there is?

Might you be neglecting to mention several hundreds of billion dollars given to the banks elsewhere? And would it be insane to not expect there to be many strings attached to OUR money bailing out these banks? So that now that they're back up on the feet they don't continue to fuck us over? They shouldn't have received this money to begin with, but if they were, WE should have gotten something from it. We received NOTHING. And you can say what you want about what MIGHT happen in the future. The fact of the matter is that Obama ordered and received a 30,000 troop INCREASE. He hasn't decreased the numbers in Afghanistan at all, they've risen by about 50%. And this is a good thing according to you.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2009/02/04/business/20090205-bailout-totals-graphic.html
Does this mean anything to you?

[truebrit71]

28. But they were able to keep their powder incredibly dry...

...:eyes:

[EOTE]

40. Well, that's true.

I look forward to that powder getting some use annnnyyyy minute now.

[gratuitous]

14. Yup

The internals of this so-called "poll" never quite stack up, but the alleged result fits so nicely with some folks' agenda that the shortcomings don't bother them at all. I'm sure all the liberal Democrats in upper management at Goldman Sachs heartily approve of the president.

[MineralMan]

64. And you do? I don't think so.

[EOTE]

73. Yes. I know that "liberal" does not mean sending tens of thousands of additional troops

to a country where we never belonged in the first place. I know that reforming health care does not mean giving the insurance companies a front seat at the bargaining table while completely ignoring the public which elected you (while pretending to care about the PO while it was off the table from the beginning).

Being liberal means caring about the least amongst us. Everything this president has done has catered to the most well off in this country. He's as far from a liberal as can be.

[Kahuna]

138. You don't know jack, because liberals are not a monolith. We are

liberal because we hold varying views.

[EOTE]

157. Yeah, so you think that liberals can hold almost exclusively right wing views?

In what planet? A liberal CANNOT support preemptive wars, a liberal CANNOT escalate those wars. A liberal CANNOT support massive inequities in wealth. So long as "liberals" think that they can still be a "liberal" while swallowing 90% of the crap coming from the GOP, I want nothing to do with them. What a joke.

[Kahuna]

110. Who gets to decide who a "real" liberal is? Not you.

[EOTE]

117. So apparently a "real" liberal is one who supports trickle-down economics

and increased troop levels for unjust wars. Oh, let's not forget a "real" liberal throws the public option under the table in order to garner favor with the insurance industry.

[Kahuna]

139. Liberals are not a monolith. We are liberals BECAUSE of our

varying views.

[EOTE]

Ahhh, so liberals support trickle-down economics and preemptive wars.

That's pretty disgusting. I guess I have no desire being a liberal now.

[Kahuna]

159. The support whatever they want to support without being dictated too..

by some fly-by-night, so called liberals who have a hissy fit and stand down from the fight if they don't get what they DEMAND, immediately. And by the way, you don't get to make demands on behalf of anybody but yourself, so get over yourself already.

[EOTE]

160. "liberal" is not some amorphous term which changes with the wind.

I'm not "demand"ing anything, I'm saying that this president is extremely far from a liberal. You acting like I'm demanding anything is a big, fat strawman you use because you can't respond to my argument any other way. He wouldn't listen to me anyway, I just have no intention of supporting him again. If you're interested in the definition, here it is for you:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/liberal

Notice the distinct lack of reference to regressive tax policies or preemptive wars. If you actually think that a liberal supports such things, you know extremely little. Get over yourself already.

[Kahuna]

161. Get over yourself already. I've been a register democrat for 39 years,

and don't need any whippersnappers trying to school me about what it means be be a liberal. Get over yourself already.

[EOTE]

162. Don't worry, there are plenty of democrats who have no idea what the word "liberal" means.

You are certainly not alone in that regard.

[Name removed]

16. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[lamp_shade]

18. I'm a liberal. An informed liberal.

[flamingdem]

19. Do you mean that or did you forget your sarcasm tag?

"only looks good compared to GOP crazies" .. now that is a crazy comment

[slay]

20. I'm totally serious

and i have the right to an opinion that is NOT yours.

[flamingdem]

22. Sure, even if it is uniformed that's fine nt

[slay]

25. You can have your opinion, I have mine

i just happen to be right. :P

[flamingdem]

30. You just happen to agree with the Republicans

Go right ahead they could use the support

[slay]

32. Obama has been a terrible president

i'll agree with that - but for different reasons that the republicans. nice try though.

[TheWraith]

24. But you don't have the right to redefine "liberal" or insult the people who disagree with you.

Which is really your only defense against the fact that reality does not back up your preconceived biases.

[slay]

26. But you do? Pot, meet kettle. How is stating people are uninformed insulting? Call it like I see it

you have every right to disagree. :hi:

[TheWraith]

29. Pointing out facts is not an insult. You are not entitled to your own facts.

You are welcome to have an opinion; you are not welcome to try redefining objective reality.

[slay]

31. Your so called facts are highly suspect

i could call myself a conservative republican for the purpose of that poll if i wanted to - no way for the pollsters to tell.

[TheWraith]

46. To believe what you do, you have to posit a massive grassroots conspiracy to sway a poll.

One where hundreds upon hundreds of people, every single week for YEARS, spontaneously and with no preexisting plan, decide to pretend to be liberal Democrats in order to artificially inflate Obama's approval rating with one core group.

All that to avoid accepting the obvious fact that you are not representative of liberals.

[Name removed]

83. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[TheWraith]

87. Actually, I am. And again, you don't define what is a "liberal."

Nor do you get to define "liberals" as "people foaming with irrational anti-Obama rage."

[slay]

90. So you approve of Obama giving tax cuts to the top 1%, covering up the Bush era War Crimes,

etc. how very liberal of you. :eyes:

[TheWraith]

93. I feel badly for you that you're unable to hold a balanced, factually accurate view of the world.

It must be sad when everything has to be broken down into categories of "me" and "evildoers."

[slay]

112. Mine is crystal clear

yours sides with republican views.

[Electric Monk]

146. Translation: "Yes" nt

[EOTE]

100. Liberals support a progressive tax code. They are generally against unjust wars, too.

So on those two fronts alone, Obama has been an utter failure. You can say what you want about liberals, but they don't support an extension of the Bush tax cuts and they don't provide massive troop increases for unjust wars. I think all liberals could agree to that.

[Divine Discontent]

43. that is honest to goodness what most dems I personally know say, too.

he's done some great things, and some bad things. he's still better than the nutbags in the GOP, and we have to support him, because frankly, you need money to run and he has more than anyone, and again, he's not one of the nutbags. what we need to get him is a bunch of liberals to replace the teanuts. how I wish that could happen next year!



Get it now, or one of a million other designs! http://www.zazzle.com/republicans_2012_keeping_millions_out_of_work_bumper_sticker-128659602907896843?rf=238107662556833486

[EOTE]

52. Couldn't have said it better myself.

I'm glad you were prepared for the inevitable onslaught. It can be dangerous telling the truth at times.

[AmericaIsGreat]

56. Exactly.

I mean, this WAS the president who criticized liberals for giving him shit about caving on the Bush tax cuts and debt ceiling, right???

The one who won't even come out and state his support for real, progressive legislation (never-mind enacting it)????

These people would probably list members of the blue dog coalition as liberal politicians, too. What a joke.

[Name removed]

21. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[hobbit709]

23. And like all the other polls, it proves what?

[TheWraith]

27. In this case, that President Obama still has the steadfast support of liberal Democrats.

Contrary to the narrative some people would like to spin that liberals have (or should) abandon him for supposedly being some demonic arch-conservative.

[Name removed]

34. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Lasher]

33. His overall approval rating is 43%

That's up two points from last quarter's average of 41%.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/124922/Presidential-Job-Approval-Center.aspx

[BoWanZi]

35. I'm trying to understand what is the importance of this poll:. 84 percent of his fans approve him.

Just seems like a non-issue. So what if 84 percent of his main support base approve of him, I hope and would assume that his approval would be quite high amongst people that identify themselves as liberal Democrats.

I would be much more intrigued if the Gallup approval rating was rating Obama's approval rating amongst moderates and independents. Now those are the numbers to care about especially if they slowly kept on climbing.

But his liberal Democrat approval ratings? Kind of like water rating itself as wet.

[Inuca]

38. I woudl agree, except for

the many in these parts who claim he is a republican in disguise or worse.

[Number23]

164. I absolutely LOVE how those goal posts keep moving in this thread

This forum is a non-stop "'LIBERALS' AGAINST OBAMA" masturbation session day after day. When Lozo or someone points out that liberal support of this president is absolutely STELLAR, then all of a sudden it's "well, what do independents think?"

Lord, you just have to :rofl: :rofl: I know I do. Frequently.

[slay]

41. +1

oh now don't go pointing out facts in this thread - the pro-Obama nation will not stand for it!

[Inuca]

36. But... but... who defines them sa liberals?

That's the comment I got to a post of mine a while back in a similar context. Not an exact quote, obviously, but it kind of blew my mind away and it stuck. In other words, the "idea" was (at least the way I understand it), that since the respondets were self-defined liberals, it does not count, anybody can "call himself a liberal". I guess we need to apply to get a formal certification of "liberalness" (liberality :-)?), not sure where to apply though...

[flamingdem]

49. I advise against applying at DU

To many here liberal means attacking Obama six ways to Sunday and never mentioning the GOP

[SidDithers]

45. K&R...nt

Sid

[AmericaIsGreat]

48. Yeah, "liberal Democrats."

Right. These are people who probably voted for blue dogs in their districts.

They are center Democrats.

Anyone who is a LIBERAL and has an ounce of honesty in them would disapprove of Obama's performance from a LIBERAL platform's perspective. It's just as simple as that. He hasn't done anything LIBERAL and even criticized liberals when they (correctly ) pointed out he caved on the Bush tax cuts (and the debt ceiling).

I mean, i get it; up until a few months ago I was still toting the lines about how he's in a difficult situation and right-wingers hate him and want him to fail and, certainly, these things are still true. However, I realized that not being able to execute liberal legislation is one thing if you at least state your position in favor of it. Obama doesn't even do that. He's a center Democrat with high approval from center Democrats. This "liberal Democrat" shit doesn't fool anyone. What has Obama done of which a liberal would approve? I know it isn't the joke of a healthcare bill, agreed to in a backroom deal with insurance companies, or the expanded drone strikes and continuation of Iraq/Afghanistan and now bigger military presence around SE Asia. I know it's not the free trade agreement with S. Korea, Panama, and Colombia. I know it's not the truckling on Bush tax cuts and the debt ceiling and the non-response to OWS.

Real LIBERALS know who they are. These people can keep calling themselves liberal if it makes them feel better. It's just a shame that they have to present their center-Democrat bullshit as "liberal" to others; it weakens the liberal platform and makes us look bad.

[slay]

51. Thank you

excellent point - watch out though - i got jumped all over for saying basically the same thing - just not as eloquently as you. :hi:

[Desertrose]

54. Well said!

The word "liberal" really has no meaning anymore...or certainly not what it once was......



"I don't think that word means what you think it means...."
:evilgrin:

[TheWraith]

61. Newsflash: you do not define what a liberal is.

Nor does DU as a whole, which is far out of the mainstream even of liberal Democrats.

[slay]

71. Newsflash: Neither do you

n/t

[TheWraith]

79. Unlike you, I never pretended to.

I actually prefer to rely on objective fact to determine how I see the world.

[slay]

86. Liberals don't ignore facts like how Obama covered up the Bush war crimes, tax cuts for the top 1%

etc. i mean if you want to keep defending that kind of stuff - go right ahead.

[joshcryer]

152. How is that relevant? One can disagree with Obama's policies and still approve of him.

He is not defined by a single position.

[AmericaIsGreat]

77. I don't need to define anything except the liberal platform

Then compare Obama's record to it. Guess what? They don't align, so give it a rest with this "define liberal" shit; I've seen you repeat it in multiple threads.

I gave you SPECIFIC examples of what Obama has and has not done that lie in contrast to the liberal platform: free trade agreements, continuation of tax cuts for the rich, continuation and expansion of war and military presence, a back-room deal on the healthcare plan that lined pockets of insurers even more.

Are you telling me that liberals are FOR these things? If not, then it stands to reason that liberals have almost NO reason to approve of Obama's presidency.

So, I guess you just don't know what the liberal platform is.

[TheWraith]

82. First off, half of what you list is not true.

"continuation of tax cuts for the rich"

Obama supports the expiration of the Bush tax cuts. Now if you're willing to let millions of unemployed Americans starve and lose their homes in order to tax the rich a little more, you might want to ask yourself what your priorities are.

"continuation and expansion of war and military presence"

Minus ending two wars and cutting the DOD budget, of course.

"a back-room deal on the healthcare plan that lined pockets of insurers even more"

Except it's been repeatedly proven that there was no "back-room deal" except in the imaginations of people who want to attack the Democrats.

[AmericaIsGreat]

95. Yeah, right

We've expanded drone strikes in the Middle East, authorized troops to help fight rebels in Africa, and are setting up shop in Australia to keep tabs on China.

End two wars? Which ones? Last time I checked, Iraq and Afghanistan are still going on three years after Obama took office and Afghanistan got a troop surge under him. Our own military has admitted we'll have troops in the countries for decades to come. I don't recall Obama commenting on that; maybe you can refresh my memory.

Watch Frontline's "Obama's Deal" to see how that healthcare bill was produced. There were DEFINITELY backroom deals.

The liberal platform does not align with Obama's record. To be frank, I don't know why this is problematic for you to admit. You should be proud of being a center Democrat with a president exercising the center Democrat platform, just like the respondents in that poll.

[joshcryer]

153. These are the same people who let the teabaggers get out 9% more votes than we did.

They don't care about facts.

[Inuca]

67. Comments such as this are absolutely AMAZING

What gives you the right & knowledge to define what "real liberals" are, and even more stunning to me to tell somebody who considers himself/herself a liberal that s/he is deluded, since s/he does not fit YOUR definition. The one sentence I agree with in what you wrote is "Real LIBERALS know who they are". It's something you know about yourself, period. Not to mention that there is no "formal" definition of what being a liberal actually is, you chose yours, I chose mine, etc. IMHO this as bad as the name calling that comes from the right, classifying OWS or Obama or, or, or... as this and that according to THEIR definition of this & that. I am not sure that what I am writing here makes much sense, and if it does not, I apologize. But I am just MAD at the audacity, and in my view lack of liberal values of the people that make such statements. IMHO again, essential to being a liberal is being TOLERANT. You can't be tolerant even of your "own", if they do not happen to agree 100% with YOUR definition of right.

[AmericaIsGreat]

80. Again with the "define liberal" crap.

As I said in response to Wraith, I don't need to define "real liberals." I simply know what the liberal platform is and then I compare Obama's record to it. It's actually quite simple. I already gave a bunch of examples of how the two do NOT align. You can come up with many more. Once you have, come back and tell me that I'm wrong saying liberals have no reason to approve of Obama's presidency. I'd love to hear your reasoning.

[Inuca]

101. You do not have to define it

you know it "in your gut". I see now.

[JoePhilly]

132. If your choices for Senator were ... Liddy Dole or Kay Hagen ... what do you do?

Stay home because Kay Hagen wasn't liberal enough?

And this sentence ...

"Anyone who is a LIBERAL and has an ounce of honesty in them would disapprove of Obama's performance from a LIBERAL platform's perspective. It's just as simple as that. He hasn't done anything LIBERAL and even criticized liberals when they (correctly ) pointed out he caved on the Bush tax cuts (and the debt ceiling)."

Is false in about 20 different ways. But while spoil a nice rant.

But look ... I hate to break the news ... but you are not the arbiter of who gets to call themselves liberal. In a fascist state you could, but not here.

I've met self-proclaimed liberals who think the ability to own private property is wrong, and they think a real liberal would be against it. They have the right to make that claim. But they, also do not get to decide who self identifies as a liberal anymore than you do.

Also ... not sure that I have ever heard Obama claim to be a liberal.

[NorthCarolina]

148. Center Democrats have successfully moved the Democratic Party to the right, and now

they seek to move the definition of "Liberal" to the right. Hence, YOU as lefty Liberal don't get to define what a "Liberal" is, but apparently the DLC New Dem type right of center centrists do.

[yodermon]

57. Open question: Did Gallup ask the same poll question during the Clinton years?

and is there data for it?

[TheWraith]

63. Not sure, but if they did, it's not available via their Presidential Job Approval Center.

That only has numbers for overall approval of previous presidents.

[dawg]

59. The more who approve of our moderately conservative President, the better.

The alternatives are unthinkable.

[slay]

78. At least you're realistic about the situation

as opposed to some on here who for some reason actually believe Obama is a liberal! I know! I find it hysterical too! :rofl:

[BoWanZi]

113. Exactly!

[AmericaIsGreat]

125. The alternative could be

A progressive liberal candidate.

How long are we going to keep electing people because they're "better than the alternative"?

[MineralMan]

62. K&R.

We need President Obama to be re-elected, and we need Democrats in as many seats in Congress and state legislators as we can get. That's why it's crucial that everyone actively work on the 2012 campaigns wherever they are. We must win. If we lose, we may never get another chance. The Republicans will destroy the country faster than anyone can imagine if they get the chance. Don't let the Norquists and Kochs win this one.

[DCBob]

91. wonder what his approval rating is among DU socialists?

maybe in single digits. ;)

[sufrommich]

98. Yep. nt

[Number23]

102. Holy sh*t! Rec #14!!!!!

This cannot be... it's a Lozo thread with positive news about the president. IN GD!!! :wow: :wow:

This cannot be...

[Scurrilous]

104. Good news.

K & R :thumbsup:

[lamp_shade]

105. You're such a shit-stirrer.....

[NNN0LHI]

107. When he took office his approval rating among the same group was 88%

[pnwmom]

111. I think most liberals recognize that he's making the best out of his situation.

For the first time in history, the Rethugs -- beginning in his first administration -- filibustered nearly everything that came to the Senate. They could do this because Joe Lieberman wasn't a Democrat any longer, and often sided with them. Later, we lost Kennedy and then-- in the next election -- other Democratic Senators, as well as the majority in the House. Not that Obama could ever have been guaranteed every Democratic vote anyway -- Dems don't move in lockstep like the Rethugs.

He's a President, not a dictator, and he has to work with the rest of the people who were elected. Let's hope we'll do better in 2012.

[treestar]

115. Rec.

[lpbk2713]

120. KnR ... Thanks for the post.

:thumbsup: :hi: :thumbsup:

[Chan790]

126. What is your approval rating among DU posters? n/t

[LoZoccolo]

129. Probably less than 30%.

[Chan790]

130. On the bright side, that makes you substantially more popular than Congress.

[LoZoccolo]

131. It would be interesting to see if that were true.

[zanana1]

128. I'll get a taste of that tonight...

I'm starting to work on the Obama campaign tonight, calling Dems from the first campaign to try to convince them to volunteer again. Crazy, you say? Hopeless? Ridiculously optimistic, you say? Hell yeah. But I'll be there.

[lamp_shade]

137. Same here. Fired up and ready to go.

[zanana1]

149. I just got back from making phone calls for Obama.

Out of the 100 people I spoke to who supported him in 2008, 100% said they'll be voting for him again! I was blown away--I expected to be disappointed. Instead, I'm walking on air.

[flamingdem]

150. super to hear!

thanks

[Number23]

163. I think the reality of what you're experiencing is much more real than the alternative reality

that is DU. The "disappointment" that blankets GD seems to mostly stay within this forum and a few other spots on the interwebs. Probably why I'm seeing more and more people BEGGING the denizens of this forum to "get out more."

[Angry Dragon]

133. How many liberals were polled??

and please define a liberal because there seems to be some confusion of what that really means

[Broderick]

134. no doubt

definitions have changed. People wear it like a badge but are far from it. Then the name progressive came out and that has gotten co opted in certain circles.

[ThomWV]

136. Clearly less than 15% or so

[TroglodyteScholar]

140. So odd how you pop up every few days to tell us how we feel about the president.

Every time it's an absolutely worthless OP. Every time.

[sufrommich]

142. Why is it odd to report on the popularity of a democratic

president among democrats on a democratic forum?

[Angry Dragon]

144. then maybe he should take a poll here

[LoZoccolo]

143. You clicked on it.

[TroglodyteScholar]

145. Thanks for reminding me...

...I also meant to mention that it's common etiquette here to put "n/t" in the title of a post if you don't put anything in the body. Pretty inconsiderate of other people's time to do otherwise.

[MissDeeds]

147. Thanks

I needed a good laugh.

:rofl:

[Modern_Matthew]

151. What is his approval rating among far left Democrats?

Not trying to be a smartass. Genuine curiosity.

[joshcryer]

154. The far left aren't Democrats.

They're either independents, third party, or don't vote.

Note, I'm an independent and if I was polled by this I would not show up as Democrat.

[lonestarnot]

156. K & R!

[LWolf]

158. Neoliberals. nt

[TNLib]

165. I think allot of Liberal democrats stopped identify themselves as liberal democrats

and now identify themselves as independents. I think it's good news though that many dems still support Obama. I'm getting really worried about Newt.