Retard USA: Nearly Half of Under 21 Americans Think Obama was more Influential than Washington

[AuH20]

:eek:

http://eagnews.org/shock-poll-half-under-21-think-obama-had-more-impact-on-america-than-george-washington/


44% of younger Americans believe Barack Obama had a “bigger impact” on America than George Washington

[PAF]

Look at this country. This time I think they’re right.

[enhanced_deficit]

This is quite troubling overall picture.
Especially considering that just few years ago nearly Three-Quarters of over 40 Americans saw Bush as a wise POTUS and thought Iraqi freedom war would be good for America.


Is there a major IQ deficit spreading among under 21s and over 40s?

[brushfire]

Washington? Didn't he date Kim Kardashian once?

[specsaregood]

I guess I am the only one encouraged by that number? I would have expected it to be much higher.

[Ender]

This is quite troubling overall picture.
Especially considering that just few years ago nearly Three-Quarters of over 40 Americans saw Bush as a wise POTUS and thought Iraqi freedom war would be good for America.


Is there a major IQ deficit spreading among under 21s and over 40s?

LOL- I fall between that so I must be a genius. ;)

Actually 99.9% of Americans don't know that Harding was probably THE best president of the 20th Century. He reversed a depression & did a number of things that saved the country. Of course, he was then accused of some bad stuff that he had nothing to do with, and died suddenly & under suspicious circumstances. Now most Political polls cast him as one of the worst presidents in history.

That is what public edumacation is all about.

[Zippyjuan]

Washington should use social media more.

[Anti Globalist]

What's scary is that these people are the future of this country.

[AuH20]

What's scary is that these people are the future of this country.

There is no future.

[oyarde]

Buy more ammo , get ready for the next whiskey rebellion.

[acptulsa]

These are people under 21. Children. And 75% of children (or more) have not yet developed the ability to appreciate that things which happened before they were born could have had a huge impact on their lives.

And so has it always been, generation after generation.

[specsaregood]

These are people under 21. Children. And 75% of children (or more) have not yet developed the ability to appreciate that things which happened before they were born could have had a huge impact on their lives.

And so has it always been, generation after generation.

Meh, I doubt it has much to do with age. Poll the members of the media or Hollywood stars, I bet their results come out even higher in favor of Obama.

[acptulsa]

Meh, I doubt it has much to do with age. Poll the members of the media or Hollywood stars, I bet their results come out even higher in favor of Obama.

I have to disagree. Most children have quite a bit of difficulty understanding the importance of things that happened before they were born. That seems to come with the last stages of brain development.

[specsaregood]

I have to disagree. Most children have quite a bit of difficulty understanding the importance of things that happened before they were born. That seems to come with the last stages of brain development.

So you think if they polled the members of the media and Hollywood stars (and I'll add sports stars), that Obama would come with a lower number than 44%?

[acptulsa]

So you think if they polled the members of the media and Hollywood stars (and I'll add sports stars), that Obama would come with a lower number than 44%?

Depends. Sports stars are certainly children.

[specsaregood]

Depends. Sports stars are certainly children.

Well you say you disagree with me, then wont come out with a straight answer. I think percentage has more to do with influence peddling than the brain development cycle.

[Anti Federalist]

I guess I am the only one encouraged by that number? I would have expected it to be much higher.

That was my first reaction as well.

[acptulsa]

Well you say you disagree with me, then wont come out with a straight answer. I think percentage has more to do with influence peddling than the brain development cycle.

Don't add sports stars and the number will be less than 44%. Straight enough?

[specsaregood]

Don't add sports stars and the number will be less than 44%. Straight enough?

yeah, we'll have to agree to disagree then. I think you'd probably get closer to 65% with Hollywood celebs and definitely over 50% with media talking heads.

[Occam's Banana]

44% of younger Americans believe Barack Obama had a “bigger impact” on America than George Washington

How are they wrong? :confused:

What did Washington actually do as President that had so much more "impact" than anything Obama (or Dubya or Clinton or etc.) did?

George Washington didn't have things like a "Presidential Kill List" or carte blanche from Congress to attack other countries as and when he pleased ...

[specsaregood]

How are they wrong? :confused:

What did Washington actually do as President that had so much more "impact" than anything Obama (or Dubya or Clinton or etc.) did?

George Washington didn't have things like a "Presidential Kill List" or carte blanche from Congress to attack other countries as and when he pleased ...

worth noting, I don't see in the OP where it specifies "as president"

[Occam's Banana]

worth noting, I don't see in the OP where it specifies "as president"

What else, then? "As community organizer"?

Obama is an entirely irrelevant non-entity except "as president" ...

[Swordsmyth]

How are they wrong? :confused:

What did Washington actually do as President that had so much more "impact" than anything Obama (or Dubya or Clinton or etc.) did?

George Washington didn't have things like a "Presidential Kill List" or carte blanche from Congress to attack other countries as and when he pleased ...
The Constitutional Convention had far more impact not to mention leading the Revolutionary Army.

[Dr.3D]

Could it be that those kids are the product of our leftist leaning educational system?

I remember when my son had to write a paper about, why Obama is a great president.

[Occam's Banana]

What did Washington actually do as President [...]

The Constitutional Convention had far more impact not to mention leading the Revolutionary Army.

Washington didn't do either of those things as President. (And as for the not-as-President angle, see my reply to specs in post #22).

In any case, as much "impact" as Washington might be said to have had with respect to either of those things (if any - would the outcome and subsequent consequences of the Constitutional Convention really have been any different if Washington had not presided?), it is reasonably defensible to say that things like Obamacare have had much more direct and powerful influence (i.e. "impact") on the "here and now" of the year 2018.

The ambiguity of the terms used (such as this notion of "impact") and the lack of rigor in specifying (indeed, the complete absence of even merely suggesting) the domain over which those vague terms are to be applied (the span of a Presidency? the span of an entire life? mix-n-match? something else?) are just two of many illustrations of why polls such as the one cited in the OP are useless for ... well, for anything at all (except, perhaps, finding what you look for) ...

[TheTexan]

George Washington created America but he wasn't really the one that made it Great, it was more of a team effort .

[acptulsa]

Washington didn't do either of those things as President.

He didn't do any of those things as king, either. He could have, but he refused, because after fighting to be out from under a purple-robed madman, he didn't believe in monarchy.

Can Obama match that?

[Occam's Banana]

He didn't do any of those things as king, either. He could have, but he refused, because after fighting to be out from under a purple-robed madman, he didn't believe in monarchy.

Can Obama match that?

Literally? I suppose he can (since he, too, was never a non-figurative "king").

Metaphorically? *shrug* Take your choice. Which just goes further to my point ...

If we are now to account for counterfactuals (let alone metaphorical ones) in addition to such vague and ill-defined notions as "impact" or "influence", such polls become even more lacking in any kind of rigor and accuracy - i.e., they become even more meaninglessly worthless - than they already are.