12

Students despise Obama policies...when credited to Trump

Posted by freedomforall 2 weeks, 5 days ago to Politics
32 comments | Share | Flag

"In anticipation of the 100-day mark of Donald Trump's presidency, Campus Reform asked students at George Mason University to evaluate some of the president's accomplishments.
The students predictably blasted things like the "Apology Tour" and stimulus package, even comparing them to Nazi policies, at least until learning that they were actually accomplished during President Obama's first 100 days."
SOURCE URL: http://www.campusreform.org/?ID=9116


Add Comment

FORMATTING HELP

All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

  • Posted by  $  Dobrien 2 weeks, 4 days ago
    These idiots have been taught to feel not to think and repeat the vicious rude attacks and buzzwords the left voice oops I mean media repeats.
    The one arrogant idiot wearing a hammer and sickle shirt says it represents collective production. Huh...... get thee to Venezuela.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by  $  allosaur 2 weeks, 4 days ago
      He wants to hang around and vote for Bolsheviki Bernie once again~to hope and Candy Mountain change us into what Venezuela woulda been with socialism modified with good ole' Yankee ingenuity.
      Yeah, boy, the Jackass Party can do anything because the subservient RINOs always behave.
      Even when RINOs are in power.
      Here's a RINO who used to be a school principle~
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EVcCw...
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by  $  mminnick 2 weeks, 5 days ago
    The students have been taught to look at the person , not the policy. If it is a "Bad" person or done for the right notives, the policy is bad. If it is a "Good" person the policy is good.
    Students have been told for about 2 years that President Trump is a joke, a know-nothing and all sorts of vile and evil things while Obama is the savior knight saving the country from its horrible past and even worse future. Hillary was to complete the renovation of the country and make it the socialist dream come true.
    Small wonder that the results were what they were.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Herb7734 2 weeks, 4 days ago
    All this proves is the increasing worthlessness of polls. It has long been known that the results of any survey's outcome can be altered based on the way the question and follow-ups are presented. It is becoming more evident all the time as we check the results of polls as applied to the reality of outcome.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by term2 2 weeks, 4 days ago
    Colleges arent there these days to help students "learn". They are set up to "teach" what they want the students to accept. I wouldnt send my kid to college these days.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by NealS 2 weeks, 4 days ago
    Its really unfortunate that these people can vote as long as they pass the age requirement. Residency doesn't seem to matter anymore. And these people should make it obvious that there should be an intelligence requirement, and perhaps even a test. Especially during the last decade we should have by now learned that we may need an amendment to our constitution, and some additional laws, that include more specific attributes required to vote. What's going on now is perpetrated by our leaning institutions by actually indoctrinating too many to even vote against their own personal beliefs. Someday, soon everyone will be asking, "What happened?" Will it be too late?
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by diessos 2 weeks, 4 days ago
    This is why the 26th amendment should be changed. Only 18 year olds who are in the military or working fulltime should be able to vote
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by 2 weeks, 4 days ago
      I think you are giving the vote away too cheaply. The person who thinks rationally and understands the issues, understands the importance of free markets, individual liberty, and constitutional limits on government might be a more informed voter, and might refuse to fight in the military because he understands he is being misled and his life sacrificed by and for looters in DC and NY. I do agree that very few voters have proven that they should have that responsibility, and that universal suffrage for every person able to breathe is a very bad idea for individual liberty.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by  $  AJAshinoff 2 weeks, 4 days ago
    8 year of O spearheading the many years of faithful d-agenda. We are at "...color of skin rather than content of character."

    These kids are programmed to hate whatever and whoever they are told. Trump = bad, cheated & hillary=good, robbed. America is no better, likely worse than everywhere else. We are evil because of our success. We are successful because we cheat and exploit.

    This is college mantra today. These kids are nothing but regurgitating drones, the lefts crowning achievement (minus the ski masks and violence).
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by CircuitGuy 2 weeks, 4 days ago
    This issue, the what's-this-all-about question, is really fascinating. People claim the world is polarized by politics, but this article claims that people will perceive the same ideas as very good or very bad based simply on which politician their associated with. If that's true, how to people chose their politicians? If it's just about the person, why do people claim it's about the policies and not the person?

    The three issues in the video go from least to most partisan. Apology Tour is non-partisan. I can see any president telling other countries not to think the same policies will continue. The stimulus package issue is "mixed partisan" in that Republicans are more vocal about the need not to borrow money but they are the worse offenders about actually borrowing money. The issue of making it easier to sue is clearly Democratic. You could argue Republicans want less regulation, which if done sloppily will result in more litigation, but on the surface trial lawyers are clearly more associated with Democrats. The video shows clear Democrats appearing to want "tort reform". Are they actually Republicans on this issue?

    A Partial Explanation: The first two questions were non-partisan, so it got those people not aware they were associated with President Obama in the mode of saying yes. Salesmen do this technique. They get the person saying yes to obviously true statements and then they move to statements indicating they want to buy the product. Then they can do the trail close question like which version of the product they want. In this case, when it came to the third question, the technique got Democrats to say they wanted tort reform.

    But that doesn't explain everything. If it were about partisan issues, why didn't the interviewed Democrats say something like, "I don't care about that issue. I care about helping the poor, gov't furthering equality of all people, and democratizing power in all its forms." And to the third question, why didn't they qualify it somehow? "Well usually I think civil suits are an important way to protect the public from abuse, but in this case I disagree with President Trump".

    "Voters are stupid" is NOT a satisfying answer why people get fired up about politics but not the basic policy details.

    I have heard the explanation that it's because rural people feel hate and envy as globalization shakes up the labor market and results in higher returns on equity and lower price of labor. This explanation is wrong, though, because most rural people I meet do not appear angry and resentful. Also, if this explanation were true, I would expect urban people to support Democrats but be magnanimous toward people who appear to be trying to appeal to angry rednecks. But Democrats seem as stupidly fired up as Republicans. So what's this all about?
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by  $  TomB666 2 weeks, 4 days ago
      I marked this +1 because I found your writing interesting, but I do not mean to imply that I agree with everything you wrote. For example, your understanding of the Apology Tour is seriously different from mine. If you heard what O said, he was clearly denigrating the American people for our thinking we are superior.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • -2
        Posted by CircuitGuy 2 weeks, 4 days ago
        "For example, your understanding of the Apology Tour is seriously different from mine."
        I actually have never heard of it, and it sounds like a political epithet rather than an event. I figured it probably never happened, regardless of who it's ascribed to. My point was that how the interviewer described it sounded non-partisan. The thing about easing restrictions on lawsuits, though, sounded Democrat. I think he eased them in starting a non-partisan statement.

        Despite all that, I'm still very fascinated by it. What do those people interviewed really want? Is it possible to go through every single policy President Obama supported and get them to say they are against it? If so, that completely undermines the narrative that people are so deeply divided about politics.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by  $  blarman 2 weeks, 3 days ago
          "I actually have never heard of it, and it sounds like a political epithet rather than an event."

          Then instead of jumping to a conclusion based on your own ignorance, go research it. You're making a prejudicial judgement.

          "Is it possible to go through every single policy President Obama supported and get them to say they are against it? If so, that completely undermines the narrative that people are so deeply divided about politics."

          Actually, what it proves is that the division is being exacerbated by cult-of-personality leaders such as former President Obama. It proves that people think of themselves based on political party - a pretty major division - rather than their principles. Again - that was the entire point of these interviews!
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by CircuitGuy 2 weeks, 3 days ago
            "Again - that was the entire point of these interviews!"
            Yes, exactly. As you say, these people are responding to political party rather than principles. If they they're not getting any money, business connections, etc from the parties, I want to know what their motivation is.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by  $  blarman 2 weeks, 4 days ago
      "... but this article claims that people will perceive the same ideas as very good or very bad based simply on which politician their associated with. If that's true, how to people chose their politicians? If it's just about the person, why do people claim it's about the policies and not the person?"

      Agreed. Politics should be about policies rather than personalities, but this shows that people aren't really critically thinking about anything, preferring instead to rely on talking points from their preferred "news" vendor.

      "The three issues in the video go from least to most partisan."

      I would argue that the very fact that the students panned them all thinking they were Trump's demonstrates precisely the opposite - that all three were highly partisan issues. The Apology Tour was roundly criticized by Republicans because of the message. The Stimulus Package was also highly criticized (though many RINO's bought into it) because even Obama admitted later that "it wasn't nearly as shovel-ready as it should have been". (This does, however, recognize that GW Bush also passed a similar package during his tenure and it was approved of by many Democrats.) The litigation thing was all about trying to push more social reform through the Court system - a favorite tactic of the hard left because their policies are unpopular when put to referendum - see the 2012 through 2016 elections.

      "...partial explanation"

      Maybe, but if so, it just demonstrates even further that these students lack critical thinking capabilities. To me, it doesn't exonerate them one bit.

      "why didn't the interviewed Democrats say something like..."

      BINGO! If they were really concerned about issues rather than people, they would have structured their answers in that manner. They didn't, however, which leads me to conclude (again) that they lack critical thinking skills. On top of that, they aren't making any arguments based on principle, but rather populist opinion.

      "I have heard the explanation that..."

      If one looks at a political map by county of the United States, the vast majority of counties lean Republican. The counties which lean Democrat center around high population cities. There are many theories about why this may be, but my personal feeling (having worked with many farmers) is that in rural districts you simply can't rely on a welfare net. Those values are incompatible with being a farmer. Farmers don't survive as farmers without strict budgeting, long-term planning, LOTS of hard work, and self-reliance. Those aren't values found in very many Democrats.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by CircuitGuy 2 weeks, 4 days ago
        "students lack critical thinking capabilities"
        They are misinformed. It doesn't test their critical thinking. Maybe (very unlikely) they found out that President Obama acted contrary to the policies they want, and now they will start supporting President Trump because he's likely to reverse them. That's so unlikely, but it illustrates a point. They won't start support Trump. But why? Why do they oppose Obama's policies but support the person? I can speculate, but I want to know why.

        "To me, it doesn't exonerate them one bit."
        There's a whole industry condemning or exonerating people, but I have no interest whatsoever in judging strangers.

        "On top of that, they aren't making any arguments based on principle, but rather populist opinion."
        If I understand you, you are saying exactly what I'm saying. Their arguments are not on principle, but rather something unknown to me.

        "There are many theories about why this may be, but my personal feeling (having worked with many farmers) is that in rural districts you simply can't rely on a welfare net."
        The whole last paragraph is interesting to me b/c it directly addresses my question. I completely agree the mysterious divide falls on urban/rural lines. For your theory to work, though, it means people in cities do not do as much strict budgeting, long-term planning, hard work, and self-reliance. It also means people in rural areas cannot rely on Welfare programs. I think these are false. So there's something else going on. I don't have a better suggestion. It's an interesting mystery to me.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by  $  blarman 2 weeks, 3 days ago
          "For your theory to work, though, it means people in cities do not do as much strict budgeting, long-term planning, hard work, and self-reliance. It also means people in rural areas cannot rely on Welfare programs. I think these are false."

          I've lived all my life in cities surrounded by farmland and I've dealt with both sides. My conclusions come from direct observation. You indicate you do not have an alternative, so why do you think this is false?
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by CircuitGuy 2 weeks, 3 days ago
            "why do you think this is false?"
            1. I think it's possible to benefit from gov't largess in rural regions equally as in urban regions.
            2. I think strict budgeting, long-term planning, and hard work are required for success anywhere. You have a point on self-reliance, though, which I think is more common in rural areas.
            But I don't have a better answer. Maybe you're onto something with self-reliance.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by  $  blarman 2 weeks, 3 days ago
              Oh, I definitely agree with point 1. The ethanol subsidies and other farm subsidies are absolutely an opportunity for this. And to that point, I think that's why they were instituted: to install government control and influence.

              Point 2. It's just a theory. I don't know that it is one way or the other. It seems to fit the facts but I don't have either the time or resources to conduct a thorough study.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by CircuitGuy 2 weeks, 4 days ago
        "I would argue that the very fact that the students panned them all thinking they were Trump's demonstrates precisely the opposite - that all three were highly partisan issues. "
        The people are being highly partisan, but the issues themselves aren't, except for the tort issue. I find it just fascinating, actually the most fascinating thing I know about in gov't. It points away from people voting for actual policy reasons and toward them voting for motivations unknown to me.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by  $  Dobrien 2 weeks, 4 days ago
      Just because you want to classify an apology tour as a discussion of policy changes doesn't make it so.
      "Apology Tour is non-partisan. I can see any president telling other countries not to think the same policies will continue "
      An American president’s highest moral, constitutional and political duty is protecting his fellow citizens from foreign threats. Presidents should adhere to our values and the Constitution, and not treat America’s enemies as morally equivalent to us.

      If they do, they need not apologize to anyone.

      His penchant for apologizing is central to his legacy. He may not often say “I apologize” explicitly, but his meaning is always clear, especially since he often bends his knee overseas, where he knows the foreign audiences will get his meaning. It is, in fact, Obama’s subtlety that makes his effort to reduce America’s influence in the world so dangerous.

      He started in Cairo in 2009, referring to the “fear and anger” that the 9/11 attacks provoked in Americans, saying that, “in some cases, it led us to act contrary to our traditions and our ideals.” He later said, “Unfortunately, faced with an uncertain threat, our government made a series of hasty decisions . . . based on fear rather than foresight” — a characterization Americans overwhelmingly reject.

      In Europe, saved three times by America in the last century, Obama apologized because “there have been times where America has shown arrogance and been dismissive, even derisive.” And in this hemisphere, Obama said, “We have at times been disengaged, and at times we sought to dictate our terms,” culminating in his fawning visits with the Castros in Cuba.
      Barack Obama apologized to Cuban president Raul Castro during their phone conversation after the American commander in chief's opening remarks.
      The list goes on and on.
      and as far as " gov't furthering equality of all people," Ayn Rand "Since the protection of individual rights is the only proper purpose of a government, it is the only proper subject of legislation: all laws must be based on individ­ual rights and aimed at their protection. All laws must be objective (and objectively justifiable): men must know clearly, and in advance of taking an action, what the law forbids them to do (and why) , what constitutes a crime and what penalty they will incur if they commit it.

      The source of the government's authority is "the consent of the governed." This means that the government is not the ruler, but the servant or agent of the citizens; it means that the government as such has no rights except the rights delegated to it by the citizens for a specific purpose.

      There is only one basic principle to which an individ­ual must consent if he wishes to live in a free, civilized society: the principle of renouncing the use of physical force and delegating to the government his right of physi­cal self-defense, for the purpose of an orderly, objective, legally defined enforcement. Or, to put it another way, he must accept the separation of force and whim (any whim, including his own)."

      If "affirmative action" is your parties
      furthering of equality, it is a contradiction. These policies are outdated and lead to reverse discrimination which entails favoring one group over another based upon racial preference rather than achievement, .Some policies adopted as affirmative action, such as racial quotas or gender quotas are a form of reverse discrimination. Scholars have also questioned whether quota systems and "targeted goals" are subjective and can't be clearly distinguished from each other.

      “I am neither foe nor friend to my brothers, but such as each of them shall deserve of me. And to earn my love, my brothers must do more than to have been born. I do not grant my love without reason, nor to any chance passer-by who may wish to claim it. I honor men with my love. But honor is a thing to be earned.”
      Ayn Rand
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by  $  BeenThere 2 weeks, 4 days ago
        “I am neither foe nor friend to my brothers, but such as each of them shall deserve of me. And to earn my love, my brothers must do more than to have been born. I do not grant my love without reason, nor to any chance passer-by who may wish to claim it. I honor men with my love. But honor is a thing to be earned.”
        Ayn Rand

        Hooray!!!! Oh, yes, oh yes. And the base of it is esteem of self..........into which altruism has cut a large deadly swath, out of which only Objectivism can guide the way. BT
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  

FORMATTING HELP

  • Comment hidden. Undo