General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsObama's Back.
When it comes to Benghazi or the ACA, I have his back. When it comes to idiotic suggestions of impeachment, I have his back.
When it comes to Syria, I sure as shit do not have his back. When it comes to the drone bombing, I don't have his back.
The suggestion that I've seen here that we should support everything the President says or does because he's a democrat and he's a good, smart man, is ludicrous.
And I certainly don't have John Kerry's back. At all.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
newfie11
(8,159 posts)
Earth_First
(14,910 posts)and nearly all Democrats included.
Let me cout the ways... 1...2..3...49...231...
I can count on a single hand what I do *not* support Democrats on...that takes two digits: Syria and drone technology.
If that makes me a bad Democrat, well then: 
Scuba
(53,475 posts)1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)I do not know a sinhle Democrat that has caught the vapors over the CCPI that wemt, and could not go, anywhere.
Scuba
(53,475 posts)1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)Huh?
But I would guess that my sample is far larger than your's, sense I include polling data.
Scuba
(53,475 posts)1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)I was rushing on my way to work.
Maybe this will be more clear:
tokenlib
(4,186 posts)And of course you can get 80% support for the President as opposed the GOP menace among democrats or liberals.. But if the President and the Third Way corporatists take comfort in that..they delude themselves...
The more the masses understand "chained CPI", the more angry they become.. The three legged retirement stool is almost down to one leg for many of us...and we're not about to entertain even speculation about taking a file to that last leg of Social Security...
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)Why would the public seek to understand or need to understand something that is not an issue ... except for with "Democrats" on DU?
Did you miss the part where the bargain collapsed and the offers taken off the table?
cui bono
(19,926 posts)1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)approve of President Obama ... and that number is higher for self-identified "Liberals."
Your anecdotal "I know someone" versus national polling data????
I think I'll go with FACTS, like a good pro-intellectual Liberal. Thanks.
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)What about both?
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)L0oniX
(31,493 posts)Katashi_itto
(10,175 posts)Along with TPP and the DroneWars and picking every godamn Bush flunky for cabinet proved what he really was, at least to me.
Douglas Carpenter
(20,226 posts)DAMN!! I knew there were Christian fundamentalist, Muslim fundamentalist, I suppose something that could be called Jewish fundamentalist, even Marxist-Leninist fundamentalist - But I never in my wildest imagination could have realized until now that there are - Obama-devotee fundamentalist! This is just tooooooo fucking weird. 
cali
(114,904 posts)
groundloop
(11,518 posts)It seems that some people are saying that since President Obama is doing several things they don't support that they're 100% against him.
I've been watching politics for a lot longer than many people here have been alive and it dawned on me a long time ago that I don't agree with ANY politician all the time. I agree with the President on most things, but in the case of Syria I believe he's wrong. I also believe it's our job as Democrats to let him know he's wrong about that.
Erose999
(5,624 posts)Turd Way or other neo-lib think tanks for their "work" influencing discussion on DU.
Douglas Carpenter
(20,226 posts)
warrant46
(2,205 posts)Every now and then
Raksha
(7,167 posts)and I have my own opinion as to who they are, but I never try to out them. It's impossible to prove one way or the other, and you can get booted for trying. But I can recognize an O-bot pretty fast at this point, whether they are paid or not.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)what it means when people/I say I support the President ... it has nothing to do wiyh blind, unthinking devotion to the man, the party or the office and everything to do with a recognition that the decisions of the man in the office are far more informed than the public, coupled with a basic trust in the democratic process, and finally, and in this specific case, a general comfort with the outcomes that this President has produced and how those accomplishments were achieved.
cali
(114,904 posts)Why bother to have an opinion about anything? The fall back position you're describing boils down to "trust him". No thank you. I don't trust any politician to decide for me.
I don't buy my positions or ideas wholesale.
Oh, and in some case it absolutely is about blind, partisan devotion.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)including the trust factor, informs one's vote.
You may not "trust" them to decide for you; but they sure as democracy, do decide for you ... that's how our form of government works.
cali
(114,904 posts)what policies and actions I support or don't".
No, they don't decide what I believe or don't believe.
YvonneCa
(10,117 posts)...what to believe or think.That is why democracy...though imperfect...is better than most other forms of government, IMO.
And, hopefully, we elect representatives we believe/think will uphold what we want. In your post, you said Obama has done that on some issues, but not on others, like Syria.
In the end, your power to change things lies mostly in voting differently next time... changing your representation in government to someone you trust more after gathering information.
And voicing your opinion...which you do very well...in real time.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)politician or otherwise, can/should decide what you believe. But the fact is ... in our system of government, it is the politicians that decide what policies are, and are not, pursued and/or implements.
treestar
(82,383 posts)Therefore from time to time they will not do what you want them to do.
They've spent their lives in government and you have not. So what is inherently wrong or blind about trusting their opinions more than yours, when they are the people we voted for?
YvonneCa
(10,117 posts)...democracy. We live in a representative democracy. That means we vote and elect people to be our voice and act in our government. Hopefully, when we do so, we inform and educate ourselves on the person and issues and develop some level of trust (not blind trust) in our representative.
When we don't inform ourselves as citizens, we can end up with a GWB presidency. 
If we don't like what they do, our power lies in voting them out in the next election.
President Obama and John Kerry have earned my informed trust on the issues I care about. I can understand that some people...even Dems...don't think they have earned theirs. That's the beauty of representative democracy.
nolabels
(13,133 posts)
YvonneCa
(10,117 posts)...the remnants might.
nolabels
(13,133 posts)There is often those frauds the promise one thing and try to deliver another, so where would on want to start anyway 
SAN BERNARDINO: Recall elections formally placed on Nov. 5 ballot
http://www.pe.com/local-news/politics/imran-ghori-headlines/20130903-san-bernardino-recall-elections-formally-placed-on-nov.-5-ballot.ece
cali
(114,904 posts)as well as drone killing.
John Kerry voted for the IWR. He should have known better. Instead of listening to Powell and bush he should have listened to some of his much wiser peers, like Ted Kennedy and or Pat Leahy. He either voted for it because he's easily duped or for political reasons. Either reason is poor and hardly worthy of admiration.
John Kerry didn't inform himself.
YvonneCa
(10,117 posts)cali
(114,904 posts)He chose to trust Powell and bush. I knew enough not to support the IWR, going to show that all the inside information in the world doesn't necessarily make for wise decisions.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)but don't tell them that ... they'll lecture about ancient Greece.
YvonneCa
(10,117 posts)... 
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)to point the distinction out; but to no avail.
But what should I expect when most discussions here, now, center around if only the President using the bully pulpit, only to have it be denounced as a pretty speech; or the President should be more like LBJ or FDR, but when pointing out that this President doesn't have the super-majorities of LBJ or FDR, nor does he have LBJ/FDR era politicians that would take a political ass-kicking and NOT call a press conference to whine about how mean the President was to them ... all is met with crickets; then, the issue of GITMO and/or Single-payer is raised.
{Sighhhh}
YvonneCa
(10,117 posts)...what is happening on DU is the Rand Paul folks are challenging left leaning Dems who have become anti-Obama. They always resort to same issues where they could win over disillusioned Obama supporters. Interesting thought.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)I have made that connection as well ... and why shouldn't the libertarians do that; it almost worked in their attempt to take over the gop. That fight is not over and, I'm afraid, this fight is just beginning.
YvonneCa
(10,117 posts)...the dabate on all issues is growing, thanks to our President. Debate is educational. IMO, the more people learn about the real issues, the better will be their collective decisions about our direction and choice of leadership.
IMO, a very small percentage of citizens supported GWB. A large percentage were living their lives comfortably, but politically asleep. The GOP used many of them. We can't afford that any more. I am glad to see/hear many loud voices join the debate...even here on DU.
That is the only thing that will help our country make our BEST decisions.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)Debate is only helpful/educational when the parties acknowledge that their position is based on their opinion ... and that opinion is far less informed than the opinion of the decision-makers that they are so quick to criticize.
YvonneCa
(10,117 posts)...and usually are much better informed than most of us (with the exception of a few elected flat-earth types in Congress). In a perfect representative democracy, ALL our elected leaders would be experts in their field. Citizens would be informed and take their job as citizen seriously.
Sadly, we aren't in that world. As President Obama often says, we are still perfecting our democracy. We will always be a work in progress. So debate is required...it's how we learn and how we teach others. It leads to better decisions, on everyone's part.
What I have noticed here at DU is that some welcome debate and the exchange of ideas, usually leading to some level of understanding, even if solutions aren't found. And there is always some 'white noise' from some who think loudness will dominate. Eventually people tune it out.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)YvonneCa ... Lest you be viewed as reasonable and a thinker.
I think you will be a good influence on me because I would like to see myself firmly of the former; rather than the latter, in my approach to debate ... though I sense that, as of late, I am drifting towards the line.
YvonneCa
(10,117 posts)... We all sometimes drift toward that line, especially when we are passionate about issues of importance. But the country needs voices of reason...and I think yours is one.
tridim
(45,358 posts)Douglas Carpenter
(20,226 posts)of Mao's red guard - I don't know what to think:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023606846
Poll: Do you still have Obama's back or are you tossing him under the bus?
88 votes, 91 passes | Time left: Unlimited
I trust him to seek out the 'facts' and make the right decision regarding Syria. I've got his back!
78 (89%)
Turning my back on him and tossing him under the bus.
10 (11%)
91 DU members did not wish to select any of the options provided.
Show usernames
Nevernose
(13,081 posts)88 people seeing the world as clear-cut, with 91 people saying "things aren't as clear as we'd like them to be."
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)Teddy Roosevelt said this:
“To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”
Servile. On bended knee.
Douglas Carpenter
(20,226 posts)YvonneCa
(10,117 posts)cali
(114,904 posts)never mind the facts, right?
YvonneCa
(10,117 posts)...on this. We believe different sources and our 'facts' are therefore different. As Kerry often says,you are entitled to your own opinion...on any issue...but not your own facts.
This poster was making a comment about representative democracy and the presidency.
cali
(114,904 posts)Every poll shows that to be demonstrably false.
I use real facts. I posted links to polls in this thread. The poster claiming that the American people support the President on this did not use facts and didn't link to any evidence for his claims.
and yet you have the temerity to accuse me of picking my own "facts"? Pretty brazen and pretty disgusting.
HangOnKids
(4,291 posts)As they say in a court of law your opinion is MOOT.
YvonneCa
(10,117 posts)HangOnKids
(4,291 posts)Who says the facts that you claim are facts are really the facts.
YvonneCa
(10,117 posts)...to provide links. I reread my posts... most were about representative democracy and how it works with a few opinions thrown in.
Which facts do you dispute?
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)so now you go into another forum lying? How new DU of you.
treestar
(82,383 posts)The deliberate mischaracterization of another's position is a weak argument. We who want the Democrats to wield the power rather than the Republicans realize that we don't need to make black and white stances on individual issues and thereby throw out the chance to have the Democrats, who may not be perfect as no one is, but are the best on most issues overall, be the ones wielding the power. Rather than the Republicans, who would do nothing we want and in fact do things we really don't want.
Calling that blind following, etc. is dishonest.
florida08
(4,106 posts)are a pesky bunch. We like to use our own brain. That's a good thing. The Third Way posts on Twitter. They are the Wall Street group within the democratic party. They wrote the chained CPI for SS. So we have reason to protests certain factions from within that influence POTUS.
Rebellious Republican
(5,029 posts)our elected officials on their BS. Regardless of party affiliation!
LWolf
(46,179 posts)Rebellious Republican
(5,029 posts) LWolf
(46,179 posts)To be honest, I'm more than a bit angered to see people on DU making excuses for going to war because the Democratic President clearly intends to.
I don't remember seeing that in the rush to Iraq in '03, even when 82 House Democrats and 29 Democrats in the Senate voted for the Iraq War Resolution. I might have missed it, of course, but I remember DU being unified against THAT war.
That some are willing to "flipflop" on war for a Democratic President stinks of hypocrisy and misplaced priorities to me.
Rebellious Republican
(5,029 posts)Some links would provide some insight to your post.
LWolf
(46,179 posts)pulled from my "my posts" page, in a hurry. I'm going to work. There are plenty more; the search function is our friend.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023524905
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023531947
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023562795
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3566562
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023553266
Rebellious Republican
(5,029 posts)That blows my mind. 
LWolf
(46,179 posts)1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)DU used to accept diversity of thought; we used value debate based on fact, rather than supposition (and when supposition was used in argument, it was presented as such - not as fact); we used demonstrate an ability to disagree based on political argument and then, disagree, agreeably ...
In other words, the difference between DU and FR was the loudest, most prolific poster didn't rule the day, or the site.
cali
(114,904 posts)in the case of Syria opinion reflects the country as a whole.
Do you support bombing Syria? If so, why?
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)Yes it is ... and on the issue of Syria, NO IT DOESN'T!
NO, I do not support bombing Syria; but yes ... I do support the President's proposal for a limited military strike, intended to communicate to Assad (and other (WMD capacable nations) that the use of WMDs will not be ignored or allowed. And THAT, btw, reflects the opinion of the country as a whole ... if you go by the polling and not by the loudest voice in the room, that one rarely ventures out of.
cali
(114,904 posts)you don't but you support the President's "proposal for a limited military strike..."
That is supporting bombing Syria no matter how you try to weasel out of saying it. So called limited strikes are all about bombing.
And no, it certainly does not reflect the opinion of the country as a whole. You know the drill: You're entitled to your own opinion but not your own "facts". Stop making up "facts"
Americans oppose U.S. military strikes in Syria, polls find
http://www.latimes.com/nation/politics/politicsnow/la-pn-americans-oppose-strikes-syria-polls-20130903,0,5500990.story
Most in U.S. oppose Syria strike, Post-ABC poll finds
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2013/09/03/most-in-u-s-oppose-syria-strike-post-abc-poll-finds/
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/09/03/us-syria-crisis-usa-idUSBRE97T0NB20130903
http://www.ibtimes.com/majority-americans-oppose-strike-syria-poll-1402504
President Obama faces an uphill battle in making the case for U.S. military action in Syria. By a 48% to 29% margin, more Americans oppose than support conducting military airstrikes against Syria in response to reports that the Syrian government used chemical weapons.
The new national survey by the Pew Research Center, conducted Aug. 29-Sept. 1 among 1,000 adults, finds that Obama has significant ground to make up in his own party. Just 29% of Democrats favor conducting airstrikes against Syria while 48% are opposed. Opinion among independents is similar (29% favor, 50% oppose). Republicans are more divided, with 35% favoring airstrikes and 40% opposed.
<snip>
http://www.people-press.org/2013/09/03/public-opinion-runs-against-syrian-airstrikes/
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)If you want to cite facts (i.e., polling data), it might be helpful if the polls cited polled on what is at issue. {Note: it's generally not a good idea to cite to a poll, without actually reading the poll questions ... relying on the editorial analysis is lazy and often misleading} The question is not the broad question of "Do you, or do you not, support military intervention in Syria ... because that is NOT what President Obama is proposing. I know DU, generally does not do nuance (especially when it cuts against what they want to argue); but having read much of your writing here, you had shown different ... you have the ability to do so.
Following is my analysis, of a widely media cited poll (it even shows up in your articles) doesn’t seem to represent what many on DU, and throughout the media, are indicating … that Americans do not support military intervention in Syria … and the broader proposition, that any military intervention will negatively impact Democrats … the former is incomplete and the latter is un-addressed and unanswered.
http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i//MSNBC/Sections/A_Politics/_Today_Stories_Teases/13336_NBC_Syria_Poll.pdf
“Q5 Do you generally approve or disapprove of the job Barack Obama is doing in handling the situation in Syria?
Approve .................. 35
Disapprove .............. 44
Not sure ................ 21”
Although a (+9) plurality disapprove of President Obama’s handling of the situation in Syria, this … like with most binary, forced choice polling questions are … is really a meaningless number, in that my disapproval on the subject could as easily be because I think he is doing too much, or too little … acting to aggressively, or not aggressively enough. There really is nothing substantive that can be drawn from this question, except that people are not happy … But the “why”, is the unanswered question.
But when the poll drills down a bit, a different picture emerges:
“Q6 Syrian civilians have been killed by their government in response to protests and civil unrest. The U.S is
taking diplomatic and economic measures to try to stop the Syrian government from taking military action
against its citizens. Which ONE statement best describes what you think (ROTATE FIRST THREE
STATEMENTS)
The U.S. should take military action to help stop the killing of civilians.
The U.S. should provide weapons to the forces inside Syria opposing the government.
The U.S. should provide only humanitarian assistance to the civilians injured or forced from their homes.
…OR…
The U.S. should take none of these additional actions.
Take military action to help stop the killing ............... 26
Provide arms to the opposition ................................. 6
Provide only humanitarian assistance ...................... 40
Take no additional action .......................................... 23
Take some mix of actions (VOL) .............................. 1
Take some other action (VOL) ................................. 1
Not sure .................................................................... 3”
This question reveals that a plurality of those surveyed, prefer the course of taking military action over taking no military action (by +3). But when the question is refined further (Q8), to query taking military action based on the use of chemical weapons, the response somewhat blurs, with a +8, in favor of no military action over taking military action. This seems to be where most “analysis” ends.
But when you get to Q8X, a more clear message presents:
“Q8X Now, more specifically, if U.S. military action in Syria were limited to air strikes using cruise missiles
launched from U.S. naval ships that were meant to destroy military units and infrastructure that have been
used to carry out chemical attacks would you support or oppose this U.S. military action in Syria?*
Support ................................................................. 50
Oppose ................................................................. 44
Not sure .............................................................. 6”
{Note the specificity of the question ... it directly queries on President Obama's proposal} Here the numbers flip, with the plurality supporting limited military.
So the larger numeric picture reveals that those polled are indicating that they support President Obama’s course of limited military action; rather than, what many are suggesting … that Americans oppose the President’s course. And, it should be noted that Q13 reveals much more support for President Obama’s course, that the limited military action be to “send a ‘stop using chemical weapon’ message” rather than, any broader goal.
However, though unasked (so I’m merely guessing here, based on the responses provided in Q10 and Q11), I suspect what this poll actually reflects is that while a majority of those polls support the President’s limited military action course, they also fear a wider US involvement.
Now, I know … polls are meaningless, so this poll, as all polling, should just be ignored … (except for those polls that support what I have been saying … or at most, we should just stop reading the polls, after the head-line.) \
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)And I doubt many Americans are willing to speak so fully out of both sides of their mouths. And the polling does not support your claim that Americans favor strikes against Syria :
In a Pew Research poll released Tuesday, just 29 percent of Americans favored airstrikes “in response to reports that the Syrian government used chemical weapons,” with a near-majority 48 percent opposed.
Wide majorities predicted negative consequences of a U.S. military intervention. Sixty-one percent said airstrikes were likely to lead to a long-term U.S. military commitment in Syria, and 74 percent said airstrikes would likely create a backlash against the U.S. and its allies in the region. Just 33 percent thought airstrikes would be an effective deterrent against the use of chemical weapons
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/03/syria-airstrike-polls_n_3861639.html
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)that is in question ... not the binary question that misrepresents the national opinion ... just like how the polling misrepresents the national sentiment regarding ObamaCare.
YvonneCa
(10,117 posts)...changed.
HangOnKids
(4,291 posts)So you claim your nuance is better than others? Just asking.
YvonneCa
(10,117 posts)...in black/white terms (like GWB saying, 'You are with us or with the terrorists') or seeing that there could be a gray area...DU used to debate gray areas well. I think that is good.
sibelian
(7,804 posts)Is there any reason for me to see your name on this board? You understand that this is a political discussion board?
pecwae
(8,021 posts)does not preclude "bombing".
YvonneCa
(10,117 posts)Last edited Fri Sep 6, 2013, 12:52 PM - Edit history (1)
...posters from out of the country and several self-proclaimed anarchists here.
Rebellious Republican
(5,029 posts) 1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)and in some forums, there is very little difference.
Rebellious Republican
(5,029 posts)You sound like you have some experience there (on FR). Do you post on both? Just curious, that's all.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)I have, actually, never been to the site. I have, however, read excerpts that other (more brave) DUers have posted here.
Rebellious Republican
(5,029 posts)Yet you claim that they are the same? Funny, it has been my experience that should some one like your self descent, they would have been banned from that site. Maybe there is a difference? 
RR
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)I will admit my initial comment was a tad hyperbolic, bourne of frustration out of watching a Democratic site, entitled DEMOCRATICunderground, whose front page is filled with hyperbolic posts calling President Obama everything short of the anti-christ, by people that self-identify as Democrats, but only as their third or fourth political descriptor.
For that I apologize.
Rebellious Republican
(5,029 posts)I believe I understand your sentiment. Lets work together to make our world a better place.
I offer you this, we both have mothers, and I believe both our mothers have said this to us both.
We both know that we are not simple men, we share a common bond, our mothers!
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)And yeah, I'll say that while DU as a whole is very different, there are plenty of posters who would not be out of place on those sites.
Response to Rebellious Republican (Reply #30)
Skittles This message was self-deleted by its author.
YvonneCa
(10,117 posts)Rebellious Republican
(5,029 posts)tridim
(45,358 posts)
Dustlawyer
(10,495 posts)
ProSense
(116,464 posts)Obama has his back.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)the vast majority of Democrats ... and on the issue of foriegn policy (read: Syria), so does the majority of Americans.
cali
(114,904 posts)1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)according to recent polling ... yes.
Douglas Carpenter
(20,226 posts)1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)Douglas Carpenter
(20,226 posts)you know that you will be caught?
Q5 Do you generally approve or disapprove of the job Barack Obama is doing in handling the situation in Syria?
Approve .................. 35
Disapprove .............. 44
Not sure ................ 21
Now, moving on…
Q6 Syrian civilians have been killed by their government in response to protests and civil unrest. The U.S is
taking diplomatic and economic measures to try to stop the Syrian government from taking military action
against its citizens. Which ONE statement best describes what you think (ROTATE FIRST THREE
STATEMENTS)
The U.S. should take military action to help stop the killing of civilians.
The U.S. should provide weapons to the forces inside Syria opposing the government.
The U.S. should provide only humanitarian assistance to the civilians injured or forced from their homes.
…OR…
The U.S. should take none of these additional actions.
8/13 6/13 3/12
Take military action to help stop the killing ............... 26 15 13
Provide arms to the opposition ................................. 6 11 11
Provide only humanitarian assistance ...................... 40 42 48
Take no additional action .......................................... 23 24 25
Take some mix of actions (VOL) ........................... 1 1 -
Take some other action (VOL) ............................... 1 - -
Q7 Have you seen, read, or heard the news coverage about reports of the use of chemical weapons by the
Syrian government? (IF YES And, have you seen, read, or heard a lot or just some about this?
Total Yes 79
Yes, a lot .......................... 35
Yes, just some ................. 44
No .................................... 20
Not sure ......................... 1
Q8 It has been reported that the Syrian government has used chemical weapons on its citizens. Do you think
the United States should take military action against the Syrian government in response to the use of
chemical weapons or not?
Yes, should take military action .................. 42
No, should not take military action .............. 50
Not sure .................................................... 8
http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i//MSNBC/Sections/A_Politics/_Today_Stories_Teases/13336_NBC_Syria_Poll.pdf
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)or just unable to extract conclusions from a poll/survey?
Here, I'll break it down for you:
Approve .................. 35
Disapprove .............. 44
Not sure ................ 21
Although a (+9) plurality disapprove of President Obama’s handling of the situation in Syria, this … like with most binary, forced choice polling questions are … is really a meaningless number, in that my disapproval on the subject could as easily be because I think he is doing too much, or too little … acting to aggressively, or not aggressively enough. There really is nothing substantive that can be drawn from this question, except that people are not happy … But the “why”, is the unanswered question.
But when the poll drills down a bit, a different picture emerges:
taking diplomatic and economic measures to try to stop the Syrian government from taking military action
against its citizens. Which ONE statement best describes what you think (ROTATE FIRST THREE
STATEMENTS)
The U.S. should take military action to help stop the killing of civilians.
The U.S. should provide weapons to the forces inside Syria opposing the government.
The U.S. should provide only humanitarian assistance to the civilians injured or forced from their homes.
…OR…
The U.S. should take none of these additional actions.
Take military action to help stop the killing ............... 26
Provide arms to the opposition ................................. 6
Provide only humanitarian assistance ...................... 40
Take no additional action .......................................... 23
Take some mix of actions (VOL) .............................. 1
Take some other action (VOL) ................................. 1
Not sure .................................................................... 3
This question reveals that a plurality of those surveyed, prefer the course of taking military action over taking no military action (by +3). But when the question is refined further (Q8), to query taking military action based on the use of chemical weapons, the response somewhat blurs, with a +8, in favor of no military action over taking military action. This seems to be where most “analysis” ends.
But when you get to Q8X, a more clear message presents:
launched from U.S. naval ships that were meant to destroy military units and infrastructure that have been
used to carry out chemical attacks would you support or oppose this U.S. military action in Syria?*
Support ................................................................. 50
Oppose ................................................................. 44
Not sure .............................................................. 6
Here the numbers flip, with the plurality supporting limited military.
So the larger numeric picture reveals that those polled are indicating that they support President Obama’s course of limited military action; rather than, what many are suggesting … that Americans oppose the President’s course. And, it should be noted that Q13 reveals much more support for President Obama’s course, that the limited military action be to “send a ‘stop using chemical weapon’ message” rather than, any broader goal.
However, though unasked (so I’m merely guessing here, based on the responses provided in Q10 and Q11), I suspect what this poll actually reflects is that while a majority of those polls support the President’s limited military action course, they also fear a wider US involvement.
Now, I know … polls are meaningless, so this poll, as all polling, should just be ignored … (except for those polls that support what I have been saying … or at most, we should just stop reading the polls, after the head-line.)
Douglas Carpenter
(20,226 posts)and by a large margin according to your figures most people support only humanitarian relief - and this is the only poll where it even comes close - the rest are running 2 to 1 and 3 to one and more against. Anyone who thinks that there is popular support for a bombing campaign is Syria is being willfully ignorant or intentionally deceitful and certainly does not talk to ordinary people in the real world.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)the question that directly reflects President Obama's proposal.
Funny you should make that statement, as that is EXACTLY what this poll indicates, when asked as the President has offered. So are you being "willfully ignorant or intentionally deceitful" when you expand the conclusion beyond the question?
As I said, DU used to do nuance and accurate argumentation, I guess that's no longer the case.
NorthCarolina
(11,197 posts)1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)launched from U.S. naval ships that were meant to destroy military units and infrastructure that have been
used to carry out chemical attacks would you support or oppose this U.S. military action in Syria?*
Support ................................................................. 50
Oppose ................................................................. 44
Not sure .............................................................. 6
Notice the specificity of the question? Maybe this poll is an "outlyer" poll because it is the ONLY poll (that I have seen) that actually queries the question at hand.
NorthCarolina
(11,197 posts)In response to Cali's question : "are you claiming that the majority of Americans support intervention in Syria"
You responded: "Yes"
When asked for your polling data to back up your statement, you responded with a misleading poll question even though the one that directly addresses the question presented to you by Cali was right above the one you chose to source.
Q8 from the polling data at your link is the one you should have posted here of course, however you obviously could not do that since it disproved your affirmation that a majority of Americans favor intervention in Syria.
According to your own polling source, the majority of Americans clearly do NOT support intervention...but you already new that didn't you?
the United States should take military action against the Syrian government in response to the use of
chemical weapons or not?
Yes, should take military action .................42
No, should not take military action..............50
Not sure ...................................................8
Since you did have the courtesy to respond to my previous question, I am quite curious as to why you would come here and make a claim that you obviously already knew was false? What is your purpose for attempting to paint a picture different that the reality of the situation? Do you stand to achieve some form of personal gain or compensation from US intervention in Syria? Do you simply hate Syrians so much that it is worth bending the truth to achieve US intervention? There obviously MUST be some underlying reason and goal for your misleading posts and interpretations, what is it?
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)You have a point. To the question:
I should have responded (as I consistently have when I have the time):
Sometimes, brevity of response results in an inaccurate response.
See my How I should have responded response above.
No ... but I guess to answer completely (because people seem to want to only read one post in a string of posts and draw a conclusion) ... I have nothing to gain in terms of personal compensation ... in fact, because of my tax bracket, any involvement beyond what President Obama has proposed will likely cost me, financially. Nor, do I have any direct personal interest, other than my belief that the US, and the world community, has an interest and obligation to serve as a deterent to any nation using wmds.
No, I have no hate (nor, particular love) for the people of any nation-state ... I do, however, believe that the US has an interest and obligation to serve as a deterent to any nation using wmds.
Misleading only for those that read what they what to argue against and ignore anything that would accurately inform that argument.
cali
(114,904 posts)Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)nt
cali
(114,904 posts)partisanship taken to the extreme.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)personal barbs about Democrats, droves of Democrats, voters and officials, under the guise of support of a single Democrat. That is a common ruse on DU.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)Do you even own a mirror?
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)Why does my disagreement with you and/or my refusal to back off my opinion anyways represent "blind loyalty and partisanship taken to the extreme"; whereas, your exhibiting the same traits, never represents your blind anything or extreme anything?
Something to ponder and reflect upon.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)And we have gone back and forth enough for you to know that if I cite to polling data, I have the poll to back it up.
cali
(114,904 posts)how admirable. NOT.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)and must work for a living.
Question: How do you get to spend several hours a day, most working days? I think I want your job!
Marr
(20,317 posts)Sad.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)launched from U.S. naval ships that were meant to destroy military units and infrastructure that have been
used to carry out chemical attacks would you support or oppose this U.S. military action in Syria?*
Support ................................................................. 50
Oppose ................................................................. 44
Not sure .............................................................. 6
Notice the specificity of the question ... It is the only poll that directly asks the question that reflects what President Obama's position on Syria, actually is.
Now ... back to your comment:
When I make a definitive statement, especially when referring to my citation to polling data, I have the polling data to support it.
I expect your apology when you find yourself with a tiny portion of the integrity that I live.
Marr
(20,317 posts)There are two big reasons why:
1. Several other questions on that poll directly counter your claim, such as:
Yes, should take military action .................. 42
No, should not take military action.............. 50
and
Take military action to help stop the killing ..............26
Provide arms to the opposition ................................6
Provide only humanitarian assistance .....................40
Take no additional action .........................................23
2. "50" is not a majority, let alone a vast one. So even in the one question in the one poll that was worded just the way you wanted it, from the outlet you wanted to hear it from, there is no "majority" to cite.
Your claim was and is a false one.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)to do so. You call disparage me calling me a liar ... I provide direct evident to support my position and you can't admit that your opinion is not as valid as my facts. Such is par for the course.
Now, as to your "reasons" why ...
(non)Point 1. Neither of the things you site "counter" what I have said ... my position in this thread is, and always has been, that the national sentiment, as reflected in this poll supports President Obama's position ... look it up; notice his position is reflected almost word for word in the poll question ... where a full 50% support versus 44% that oppose (50%>44%)
So the 50% that indicate "No, should not take military action" is irrelevant to the question at hand. And really, so is the second "countering" fact ... except it doesn't represent what you think it represents ... look at it closer ... Here, I'll help you:
Provide arms to the opposition ................................6
Provide only humanitarian assistance .....................40
Take no additional action .........................................23
Hint: 26>23
(non)Point 2. True, 50% is not a majority ... but it's a hell of a lot closer to a majority than 44%. But that said, do I have to explain how a polling conclusion (as presented in the editorial title is an indication of statistical rounding bias? I could, but it is found Grad school level stats/research method courses.
Marr
(20,317 posts)I notice you ignored the 40 for 'provide only humanitarian assistance' while arguing that 26% is somehow a majority.
Well, at least you're back to deceit. So that's something, I guess.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)and I could have pointed to the 13% that believe President Obama is the anti-christ, too ... Oh that, right! That would be irrelevant to the Military Force/No Military force discussion.
Come on ... It really is okay to admit error ... In fact, it's something to be admired.
L0oniX
(31,493 posts) 1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)launched from U.S. naval ships that were meant to destroy military units and infrastructure that have been
used to carry out chemical attacks would you support or oppose this U.S. military action in Syria?*
Support ................................................................. 50
Oppose ................................................................. 44
Not sure .............................................................. 6
Notice the specificity of the question ... It is the only poll that directly asks the question that reflects what President Obama's position on Syria, actually is.
RetroLounge
(37,250 posts)
RL
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)MY lies? ... it's not MY poll; but it IS the only poll that asks the question that accurately reflects President Obama's position with respect to Syria.
Deal with it!
RetroLounge
(37,250 posts)I see that you are going to sign up to fight, right, big strong man?
Or are you just a chickenhawk?
RL
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)Leave it at that.
You don't know me, nor my background.
RetroLounge
(37,250 posts)RL
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)RetroLounge
(37,250 posts)
RL
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)NOTHING ... not a darned thing.
RetroLounge
(37,250 posts)
RL
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)was a considered act ... I looked at it and was not proud, as it does not reflect who I am. Your response to my editting out an inappropriate comment, and everything there-after (to this point), exposes your juvenile nature.
I would honor you with being the first to be placed on my ignore list, if not for my understanding that placing someone on ignore makes for a whole in threads, that disrupt the context of subsequent comments ... that probably is not a concern of yours, since we are clearly here (on DU) for different reasons ... I am here to participant in discussion; whereas, you appear to be here to kill time before milk and cookies and nap-time.
So please place me on your ignore list. Thank you.
RetroLounge
(37,250 posts)Need a link to the recruiting sites?
RL
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)
Union Scribe
(7,099 posts)Shit he even starts threads to call people cowards. http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3620939 (He backed out of that one too but it's all copied in reply 1.)
RetroLounge
(37,250 posts)
RL
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)L0oniX
(31,493 posts)
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/09/03/us-syria-crisis-usa-idUSBRE97T0NB20130903
Some 56 percent of those surveyed said the United States should not intervene in Syria, while only 19 percent supported action, the online poll found. Some 25 percent said they did not know what course of action the United States should take.
http://townhall.com/tipsheet/guybenson/2013/09/03/syria-polls-n1690292
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/05/constituents-syria-intervention_n_3876766.html
U.S. Lawmakers Say Constituents Opposed To Syria Intervention, Cite Record Opposition
Where Congress Stands On Syria
Lawmakers are deciding whether to authorize a military strike against Syria.
House
Expected Yes Votes: 40
Expected No Votes: 227
Undecided/Unknown: 166
Senate
Expected Yes Votes: 28
Expected No Votes: 31
Undecided/Unknown: 41
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/320703-support-for-syria-intervention-trails-past-conflicts
...and there's plenty more! Google is your friend.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)Crack is bad "mojo", so is strawman building.
I have little doubt that any limited military invention will lead to deep involvement; but, if it stops future wmd usage, it will be worth it ... and if it doesn't, I suspect that any deeper involvement will include the world community.
That said, I fully support the proposal currently floating in the Senate ... give Assad 45 days to sign a chemical weapons ban, then base any further action on whether they sign or not. It will accomplish what we all can agree on, the end of chemical weapons usage.
Douglas Carpenter
(20,226 posts)
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)at least the my comment regarding the sentiment of the nation, as extrapolated from the poll:
http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i//MSNBC/Sections/A_Politics/_Today_Stories_Teases/13336_NBC_Syria_Poll.pdf
launched from U.S. naval ships that were meant to destroy military units and infrastructure that have been
used to carry out chemical attacks would you support or oppose this U.S. military action in Syria?*
Support ................................................................. 50
Oppose ................................................................. 44
Not sure .............................................................. 6
Notice the specificity of the question ... It is the only poll that directly asks the question that reflects what President Obama's position on Syria, actually is.
Douglas Carpenter
(20,226 posts)polls show that the public is overwhelmingly against military strikes in Syria. A simple conversation anywhere you go with anyone from across the political spectrum will reveal that
http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i//MSNBC/Sections/A_Politics/_Today_Stories_Teases/13336_NBC_Syria_Poll.pdf
Q5 Do you generally approve or disapprove of the job Barack Obama is doing in handling the situation in Syria?
Approve .................. 35
Disapprove .............. 44
The Link
(757 posts)Kerry will look like history's jackass thanks to this fiasco.
Wishful thinking.
Logical
(22,457 posts)
CincyDem
(6,351 posts)How many times did we hear recovering rethugs make this comment.
Now, to some degree, it seems the same is going on with us. It truly depresses me that PBO has created so much opportunity and had so much potential but chooses to really make his defining issue attacking Syria.
Sure, he's accomplished a lot in the past 5 year but never with the passion, the energy, the the political will to "do whatever it takes" that he's applying to Syria.
He's spent 5 years on compromise and on this issue he's willing to go so far as to overtly disregard the vote if it doesn't go his way.
Where was this passion on ACA.
Where was this passion on Supreme Court appointees.
Where was this passion on women's health rights.
Zip - zero - nada.
It bothers be deeply that the only places he brings out the spine are topics that benefit the M-I-C (NSA stuff, drones, Syria).
liberal N proud
(60,334 posts)To support anyone wholly is nonsense.
The Link
(757 posts)YvonneCa
(10,117 posts)treestar
(82,383 posts)He could equally say you are morally bankrupt when it comes to use of chemical weapons. All's fair in war then? You don't believe there should be any limits. The UN convention should be thrown out the window.
noiretextatique
(27,275 posts)and there you have that. i do not support war of any kind, which only benefits the 1%. and speaking of atrocities, how about the damage being done RIGHT HERE by sequestration, and a total lack of political and moral will?
CPX7700
(18 posts)I am horrified by what has happened to the Syrian people, but war will not benefit anything in the long run. If we displace the murderous dictator Assad, radical extremist groups will seize power immediately afterwards and threaten us.
noiretextatique
(27,275 posts)a peace purist is a person who against war...period. i am sick of America getting involved in civil wars and creating worse problems for the people in those countries, just like we did in Iraq. governments must evolve to find other ways of resolving conflicts.
and Kerry lost me when he did'nt contest Ohio in 2004
grahamhgreen
(15,741 posts)Response to cali (Original post)
Post removed
L0oniX
(31,493 posts) trumad
(41,692 posts)
Violet_Crumble
(35,961 posts)Rain Mcloud
(812 posts)But we are going to have to agree to dis agree.
The continuation of the Neo-con agenda needs to stop and it needs to stop in 2008 not in 2014 after the mid-terms or we the people are going to take another fascist shellacking.
Rec.
Aru
(64 posts)I haven't logged in since the debates of the 2012 election, and I have to say I am, proud of my fellow democrats for being real with what is going on right now. I voted for Obama, but I didn't think he would go this far....
donheld
(21,311 posts)When he has a knife to my back in the shape of a Syrian War, NSA spying, NDAA, letting bank fraudsters off the hook, NO I the hell do not.
CakeGrrl
(10,611 posts)Why does that extreme have to be used?
I suppose because it makes an easy rebuttal target, but it's a dishonest claim.
There are many people who also agree that some action should be taken against the violation of international law, but to infer that that equates to 'supporting everything he does' is a lazy way to pile up some easy recs, not making a valid point.
Rosa Luxemburg
(28,627 posts)Basically I had high hopes with Obama that he could exert his powers diplomatically. With Iraq we ended up killing thousands of Iraqis and maiming hundreds of thousands and spent trillions. Now we have yet another dictator with chemical weapons with 'iffy' intelligence. We are going down the same road. We should use the UN first. That's what's the UN is for. Besides we can remove Assad and his followers without firing expensive missiles.
