It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The Presidents Who Do The LEAST Have The Highest Approval Numbers. True-or-False.

page: 1
2
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 8 2016 @ 03:00 AM
link   
December 8, 2016

President-elect Donald Trump, is drawing all kinds of fire and criticism for building a unique cabinet, for actively communicating via Twitter, for saving jobs, creating jobs, talking to the heads of other countries, etc.. All this before becoming President.

On the other hand, President Barack Obama knew that the more he tried to accomplish, the more criticism he'd receive. That's why he now enjoys a 56% job approval rating. Had Obama not worked so hard to get 30 million more Americans insured, his approval numbers would be even higher!

I look at the posting history here at ATS, and see that there are 103,000 Trump-related posts, compared to only 50,800 Obama-related posts. It's astounding that a President-elect, would be the subject of twice as many ATS discussions as the man who's been our President for 8 years!

If YOU were to become President of the USA, would you care more about pleasing the U.S. and world populations, or doing what YOU think is best, even if it made a lot of people, and the MSM, hate your guts? (I'd be the latter..and own lots of life insurance.)

-cwm




posted on Dec, 8 2016 @ 03:09 AM
link   
I would say that statistic is due to the fact most heads of state when they do anything it is generally not in their peoples best interests.

Its not that people dislike politicians doing things, they dislike them doing things on behalf of banks and big business



posted on Dec, 8 2016 @ 03:12 AM
link   
a reply to: IkNOwSTuff

So you're saying that President Obama is not really the kind of President that Banks and Big Business like to have, so the people tend to like him more..hence his 57% approval rating?



posted on Dec, 8 2016 @ 03:14 AM
link   
Be careful of how a President is perceived as "popular" too soon. There is a hidden rule , that you only know of a President's popularity 5-10 years after they leave office. I predict now , Obama's popularity will fall well below Jimmy Carter's after that "grace period" is up



posted on Dec, 8 2016 @ 03:16 AM
link   

originally posted by: carewemust
a reply to: IkNOwSTuff

So you're saying that President Obama is not really the kind of President that Banks and Big Business like to have, so the people tend to like him more..hence his 57% approval rating?



Are you saying 57% is a good approval rating?

Maybe its better than anyone else in recent history but its still terrible



posted on Dec, 8 2016 @ 03:21 AM
link   

originally posted by: Gothmog
Be careful of how a President is perceived as "popular" too soon. There is a hidden rule , that you only know of a President's popularity 5-10 years after they leave office. I predict now , Obama's popularity will fall well below Jimmy Carter's after that "grace period" is up


That is only if you believe the MSn 57% approval rating, no ?
girlsjustwannahaveguns.com...


Obama’s legacy isn’t all that much to brag about. Really, it ushered in the demise of Americans’ freedoms. The only thing Obama was good at was making speeches. He by far was the weakest leader our nation has ever seen.

The numbers and ways this president has failed are numerous. Feckless foreign policy leading to a complete and total meltdown in the middle-east; more debt added than the previous 43 presidents combined; civil unrest resulting in ten riots, more than one per year, during his tenure; citizens hunting (and killing) police in the streets; lies told in order to pass a piece of legislation bearing his name that collapsed and cost the American taxpayer two trillion dollars.

On and on it goes.

But the true legacy Barack Hussein Obama will be remembered for is his decimation of the Democrat Party. Obama has destroyed Democrats from coast-to-coast in a manner that is astonishing.



posted on Dec, 8 2016 @ 03:22 AM
link   
a reply to: IkNOwSTuff
That 57% includes the folks that are ecstatic he is leaving office...



posted on Dec, 8 2016 @ 03:24 AM
link   
a reply to: carewemust

If I were to become leader of a nation, it would be by promising to have no agenda of my own, but to be guided by the will of the populus. I would request that citizens submit their instructions to a central hub, where people might vote on those policies and instructions directly, rather than relying on parliament to vote as the people they represent would wish. Those policies and instructions which gain majority support, would be put into law by the parliament. Those which do not, would be put aside.

It would be this way because it is my belief that no person, or small group thereof, can be trusted to represent the needs of the many, because they are too easily accessed by temptations and corruptors of myriad scale and intent, intent which next door to never aligns with the public interest. The peoples will made manifest, making the instructions of the voting public come to life, for the will of the people to breathe and live in the law of the land, that would be the only way I would consider taking a leadership position, because my only role in that position would be to speak as the voice of my nation on the world stage, and to ensure that those under me were doing the most effective job of enabling the people to access and utilise their power, and overseeing them to ensure that in the doing of it, no tendril of private interest ever seeped into a single tiny piece of punctuation in the law and by law resulting from the instruction of the people to their parliament.

In any other circumstance, I would never be so conceited as to believe that I, or any other person, ought to have that manner of power that is vested in leaders these days. None can be trusted, with such grand influence as that. Only in a situation where the people are the only power, could a leader come about who is not too in danger of becoming owned against them by interests counter to their own.



posted on Dec, 8 2016 @ 03:24 AM
link   

originally posted by: IkNOwSTuff

originally posted by: carewemust
a reply to: IkNOwSTuff

So you're saying that President Obama is not really the kind of President that Banks and Big Business like to have, so the people tend to like him more..hence his 57% approval rating?



Are you saying 57% is a good approval rating?

Maybe its better than anyone else in recent history but its still terrible


If Obama was allowed to run for a third term, would that 57% approval rating be high enough for him to have won that third term?



posted on Dec, 8 2016 @ 04:04 AM
link   

originally posted by: Gothmog
a reply to: IkNOwSTuff
That 57% includes the folks that are ecstatic he is leaving office...



Mind blown!


edit on 8-12-2016 by muSSang because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 8 2016 @ 04:06 AM
link   
a reply to: 727Sky
I dont go by news on TV at all. I check Rasmussen, Gallup , and a couple others . It is approximately that amount (depending on the day)



posted on Dec, 8 2016 @ 04:07 AM
link   
a reply to: TrueBrit

What if your population voted for 'no more leaders to represent us?' or 'let's introduce sharia law?'

Populations can be swayed like the wind depending on whats being spouted by pop stars, or twitter hashtags. Don't underestimate the level of stupidity of the herds. (myself included at times I have to admit, not often, but it does happen)



posted on Dec, 8 2016 @ 04:12 AM
link   
a reply to: muSSang
Glad I could assist .???
Ermm , you may want to take some time away and outside to recover from your ermmmm whatever it was...



posted on Dec, 8 2016 @ 04:23 AM
link   
a reply to: Qumulys

If the people decided that they wanted not to have a voice on the world stage, someone to represent their interests at meetings and conferences on matters affecting the globe entire, then I would have to step down.

On the matter of Sharia law... Do you have any conception of how small the percentage of Muslims in my country is, relative to total population? Its less than five percent if you consider the entire UK, and five point two percent if you only consider England. Ergo, there simply is no mathematical way for a Sharia law vote to be carried by the majority into law under such a system.

Now, if the percentage was MUCH higher, like fifty something percent, then we might have a discussion on our hands, but thats the beauty of this system. Unless the majority are in agreement with a given proposition, it does not become law. Tax cut for the stinking rich? Not happening. Sharia law? Not happening. More war for oil? Not happening in the slightest bit. Money for education? That will be happening. Funding equal to whatever demands are made on the public coffers by the NHS? I reckon on balance, that this would get through just fine.

Public stupidity is something I am more than aware of. However, there is this to consider. We have been burning and crashing, crashing and burning as a nation for years here in the UK. Our government claims a moral high ground it has no right to, dictates to its people constantly, while failing its hardest working people entirely. This is not because of the actions of the people themselves, but because of the actions of the small number of people who have been selected to wield power over us.

If we, the people of the United Kingdom of Great Britain, make bad policy choices and screw ourselves, at least WE would have been the masters of our fate, the owners of our destiny, rather than having these things inflicted on us from the pen of some private interest peddling megalomaniac! I do not mind failure, but I do mind failure being forced on me by powers other than the will of the people, which is what we have now.

Better to fail under our own power, than because of someone elses.



posted on Dec, 8 2016 @ 04:38 AM
link   
a reply to: TrueBrit

Look, honestly, I'd probably try something similar if I had the power over the land.

But yeah. As you say maybe 5% might want Sharia law. This might get some traction in the media. Then somebody like Milo might be thrust forward and people start saying. 'This Milo dude, he has a point on Islam...' Then all of a sudden you get a 51% vote to kill all those who wanted Sharia law.... Ooops.

I'm all for smaller government, I wish your way would work. But I think after we all demand 25% pay rises, cause inflation to skyrocket as a result, then we'd all end up in the poop.


My way would be similar, but I'd listen to topics of the day, evaluate with a team of scientists and professors (not politicians) which items have merit to improve the nation. And then issue 2 monthly policy actions. To be binding they would have to say have 75% of the population to vote total, and a winning margin of 55% or more in favour to make it actionable. Voting would be done at home via the net, we'd all have a password and would be able to look back on every previous vote we had cast to confirm it's proper.

(There are no hackers in my lands)


edit on 8-12-2016 by Qumulys because: spelling, grammar



posted on Dec, 8 2016 @ 04:54 AM
link   
a reply to: Qumulys

Not necessarily.

We could pass a law which makes it illegal for companies in or trading in the UK to raise prices or fire staff to compensate for higher wages, that any and all wage increases be covered by a lower rate of pay at the executive level and somewhat reduced profit margins, and any and all evasion or avoidance of that strategy, INCLUDING removing the company from our shores, costs the company more than it is worth and destroys it utterly.

This would give companies incentive to remain open on our shores, keep all current workers employed, and further to that, force their executives to accept pay closer to that of those working under them (or as I like to call them, the people doing the REAL work).

Preventing reactionary price rises would prevent inflation.
edit on 8-12-2016 by TrueBrit because: added clarifier/.



posted on Dec, 8 2016 @ 05:19 AM
link   
I agree with the OP. I think people are happiest with a smaller, cost effective, less invasive government. The US systems works if the president will leave it alone. I know I am happy if the government stays completely out of my life. Doesn't try to change what I think, how, where or to who, I pray, or try to make me afraid of my neighbors.

Both Bush and Obama ruled by fear with a buggie man under every rock. Telling us to be afraid, be very afraid. Or trying to change the very core of American culture by pushing their basteried version reality down our tthroats.

Leave us alone and we will be happy and happy people are satisfied with the leadership.

My .02 worth in a nutshell.



posted on Dec, 8 2016 @ 05:31 AM
link   
a reply to: TrueBrit

That's putting a lot of laws on a population you were giving full control too! What if they all vote to screw capitalism and go back to bartering for goods!

Anyways, lol, we're probably both well off topic here
Our dictatorships will have to wait for now.


As for Trump, who knows. It's going to be a bonkers 4 years if he lasts that long, but given option number 2 I'd prefer a loud mouthed dimwit than a corrupt murderous lying tyrant. Either way, Time got it right when they said Divided States of America, his noisy mouth is going to cause a tonne of problems. But its going to be great theater to watch.



posted on Dec, 8 2016 @ 06:10 AM
link   
a reply to: Qumulys

Indeed, although I would not call any system of governance where the people make the law without parliament having editorial control of it, could ever be called a dictatorship.

On topic then, I think it is rather odd to suggest that the leaders who do the least receive the most applause from the people over whom they govern. That is not to say that statistically, this statement is false, but it is probably rather more to do with the fact that popular leaders are popular because of what they do NOT do. A popular president would NOT have permitted the NSA to use mass surveillance techniques. A popular president would NOT have continued to fund extremism around the world, and used that continuing extremism to validate continuing the War on Terror. A popular president would NOT have seen Citizens United stand. He would have smacked that down faster than you can say "Not on my watch, Sonny Jim".

There are reams and reams, piles and piles of documents, laws, and orders he would not have made, if he was ever going to be a popular president. As it is, the best he can hope for is that for a time, some people had it easier than they might have otherwise, in an increasingly harrowing world, full of increasingly greedy, morally defunct people who mistakenly believe their success is a product of their hard work, rather than a combination of luck and the hard work of others.



posted on Dec, 8 2016 @ 09:46 AM
link   
a reply to: Nickn3

That's a good point, Nickn3! I can't recall the last time I heard Donald Trump use the word "FEAR" in an attempt to manipulate our thoughts or actions. He said we're gonna kick ISIS's butt, but never precedes that statement with fear talk.



new topics

top topics



 
2
<<   2 >>

log in

join