Gallup Poll US has pretty much lost confidence in every institution... - New England Patriots Forums

***DarrylS*** · 06-21-2008, 03:51 AM

A sign of the times, and the skepticism continues.. it seems that the American Populus has lost confidence in just about every institution.. congress at 12%, the CIC at 26% and the SCOTUS at 32%.. cannot frame it any differently except it is a piss poor showing for the greatest country in the world.. guess time for some changes..

http://www.gallup.com/poll/108142/Co...stitution.aspx

Patriot_in_NY · 06-21-2008, 09:33 AM

I'd pretty much agree with those numbers.

I find it funny that the Press is behind the CIC, the guy they love to tell us is dishonest and untrustworthy.

Does it bother anyone else that the entire pool of folks we get to pick our next president from is at the bottom of the list at 12%. We are so fukced.....

***PressCoverage*** · 06-21-2008, 04:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Patriot_in_NY

I'd pretty much agree with those numbers.

I find it funny that the Press is behind the CIC, the guy they love to tell us is dishonest and untrustworthy.

Does it bother anyone else that the entire pool of folks we get to pick our next president from is at the bottom of the list at 12%. We are so fukced.....

Well, it's easy to hate the press... People don't get the stories they want delivered to them, then somehow the press sucks ... And, of course, no one squawks "commie" at you when you say you hate the press.... So there's really no accountability or judgement you have to face for complaining about the press... Thus, this is indicative of nothing.

Meanwhile, it's the press who's giving you most of your awareness about the state of the world, yet still never enough of what you prefer to hear.

Regardless, 26% for Boy King? How Nixonian. How fitting.

Wildo7 · 06-21-2008, 04:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PressCoverage

Well, it's easy to hate the press... People don't get the stories they want delivered to them, then somehow the press sucks ... And, of course, no one squawks "commie" at you when you say you hate the press.... So there's really no accountability or judgement you have to face for complaining about the press... Thus, this is indicative of nothing.

Meanwhile, it's the press who's giving you most of your awareness about the state of the world, yet still never enough of what you prefer to hear.

Regardless, 26% for Boy King? How Nixonian. How fitting.

Yeah but that's just now, in ten years we'll look back on Dubya as Truman II

***shmessy*** · 06-21-2008, 04:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Patriot_in_NY

I'd pretty much agree with those numbers.

I find it funny that the Press is behind the CIC, the guy they love to tell us is dishonest and untrustworthy.

Does it bother anyone else that the entire pool of folks we get to pick our next president from is at the bottom of the list at 12%. We are so fukced.....

Please don't insult everyone's intelligence. You know better than that disingenuous post.

The President of the US ALWAYS has higher ratings than the Congress or the Press. It's easier to hate on an amorphous group than on any one person who has a wife and children in half of all photos.

I find it hilarious when posters come on here and point out "Hey the numbers for Congress are worse!". If you put a poll of Leona Helmsley against the IRS, Leona would win everytime. So, it's not the great victory for W's "awesome" era as a few would have you believe.

The only time Congress had a higher rating than a President was in the last few days of August 1974. And that was a VERY extreme situation.

If you TRULY want to compare apples versus apples, see a poll of Americans vote their preference between THEIR OWN CONGRESSMAN versus Bush. As long as there has been a United States, it's always been "Congress Bad, my Congressman Good".

Wildo7 · 06-21-2008, 05:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shmessy

Please don't insult everyone's intelligence. You know better than that disingenuous post.

The President of the US ALWAYS has higher ratings than the Congress or the Press. It's easier to hate on an amorphous group than on any one person who has a wife and children in half of all photos.

I find it hilarious when posters come on here and point out "Hey the numbers for Congress are worse!". If you put a poll of Leona Helmsley against the IRS, Leona would win everytime. So, it's not the great victory for W's "awesome" era as a few would have you believe.

The only time Congress had a higher rating than a President was in the last few days of August 1974. And that was a VERY extreme situation.

If you TRULY want to compare apples versus apples, see a poll of Americans vote their preference between THEIR OWN CONGRESSMAN versus Bush. As long as there has been a United States, it's always been "Congress Bad, my Congressman Good".

Not to mention that the line about the pool of presidential candidates being from the group with a 12% rating is also silly. If you polled americans on how they rate "politicians" as a whole I bet the number would be in the toilet. Does that mean any politician we pick will automatically be terrible?

***PressCoverage*** · 06-21-2008, 05:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shmessy

Please don't insult everyone's intelligence. You know better than that disingenuous post.

The President of the US ALWAYS has higher ratings than the Congress or the Press. It's easier to hate on an amorphous group than on any one person who has a wife and children in half of all photos.

I find it hilarious when posters come on here and point out "Hey the numbers for Congress are worse!". If you put a poll of Leona Helmsley against the IRS, Leona would win everytime. So, it's not the great victory for W's "awesome" era as a few would have you believe.

The only time Congress had a higher rating than a President was in the last few days of August 1974. And that was a VERY extreme situation.

If you TRULY want to compare apples versus apples, see a poll of Americans vote their preference between THEIR OWN CONGRESSMAN versus Bush. As long as there has been a United States, it's always been "Congress Bad, my Congressman Good".

Damn good post.

BTW, did Leona represent Boy King in that analogy?

***shmessy*** · 06-21-2008, 05:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PressCoverage

Damn good post.

BTW, did Leona represent Boy King in that analogy?

Don't insult Leona. She left a POSITIVE financial ledger (to her doggie) at the end of her run.

otis p. driftwood · 06-21-2008, 06:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shmessy

Please don't insult everyone's intelligence. You know better than that disingenuous post.

The President of the US ALWAYS has higher ratings than the Congress or the Press. It's easier to hate on an amorphous group than on any one person who has a wife and children in half of all photos.

I find it hilarious when posters come on here and point out "Hey the numbers for Congress are worse!". If you put a poll of Leona Helmsley against the IRS, Leona would win everytime. So, it's not the great victory for W's "awesome" era as a few would have you believe.

The only time Congress had a higher rating than a President was in the last few days of August 1974. And that was a VERY extreme situation.

If you TRULY want to compare apples versus apples, see a poll of Americans vote their preference between THEIR OWN CONGRESSMAN versus Bush. As long as there has been a United States, it's always been "Congress Bad, my Congressman Good".

That's fine, but if they're going to present the numbers what are we to do with them? Ignore them completely? I didn't go looking for these numbers--someone in the media decided "we" needed to know them after all.

Patriot_in_NY · 06-21-2008, 07:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wildo7

Not to mention that the line about the pool of presidential candidates being from the group with a 12% rating is also silly. If you polled americans on how they rate "politicians" as a whole I bet the number would be in the toilet. Does that mean any politician we pick will automatically be terrible?

Yeah, I agree that we could, but we didn't this time around............. I personally don't think either candidate that came from that pool is particularly strong. In fact, I think as a whole, candidates that come from congress have a poorer track record. That's my impression anyway, no facts to back it up.

Governors seems to do a little better (Not Bush though), I'm talking historically in the last 60-70 years.