On October 25 2012 03:42 jdsowa wrote: The American people are naturally conservative. Conservative in the sense of wanting to preserve the status quo.
The average voter is a middle-aged person who just wants to go to and from work, take their kids to soccer practice and come home and fall alseep in front of the TV without any hassles along the way. They don't want government supports taken away, they don't want the concept of marriage as they know it to change overnight, and they don't want to worry that other countries might attack us.
If a politician proposes any policies that would even possibly suggest to threaten that lifestyle with even a very slight hiccup, then the average voter will simply reject that politician.
The two party system completely covers the spectrum of acceptable mainstream politics, and exceeds it in many cases. The fact that it exceeds it at all--that there are Democrats and Republicans that have views that lie far outside of the mainstream--is evidence that a national 3rd party candidate can never truly be viable. You can buy TV time and generate temporary amusement, but a majority will never cast their vote for you.
Since a national politician can't afford to express too many views outside of the status quo, they have to spend a great deal of their time pretending. And since each guy does an equal share of pretending, and because their policies can't diverge too far from the mainstream, the American people make their decision based on which guy is more charismatic while still being adequately presidential. Ultimately, Barack Obama is that guy.
That was a pretty interesting and mostly accurate post, but Obama has been pretty radical for someone who "represents the status quo" as you suggested. Universal healthcare, banning guns, amnesty for illegals, and abandoning our long-time allies are pretty radical ideas that are far-removed from the mainstream political discourse.
You are so uninformed it hurts my eyes. Obama has been very pro-guns.
You really should learn how proper "research" works. You've posted source material of two kinds; obvious hack blog articles or pieces of highly interpretative news. Do you really think "OnThe Issues.org" is a reputable site? Do you really think Nile Gardner is an unbiased reporter? Do you know why that stupid AP editorial on "knowing" Obama is only hosted on google news?
Notwithstanding that Romney wanted to ban assault weapons when he was Governor of Massachusetts.
On October 25 2012 01:32 Swazi Spring wrote: Here's the video:
It sounds like a reasonable offer to me. I only hope that Obama releases all of the papers he claims to have written in college.
Obama should just respond to Trump with: As President of the United States, I do not negotiate with terrorists.
Seriously. If Trump wants to donate to a charity, he can do that without trying to pull on political strings and jerk our fucking president around. What's next? First Lady pics in a thong for ten million dollars?
Trump's a jackass and an ignoramus when it comes to not letting go of stupid situations. He just wants the limelight, and thinking that someone has something to hide just because he won't entertain stupid and manipulative requests is missing the point. Trump's not being charitable; he's trying to blackmail Obama with non-existent bullshit by providing a lose-lose situation for him. Either Obama has to continue to show credibility on every single thing he's ever done (which takes away from campaign focus- not to mention the fact that he's still leading our country- and who said that our president has to check in with Trump?), or he looks like he's hiding something? Bullshit. Just don't play ball.
Also... Trump says "to my satisfaction"... = impossible anyway. Loophole -.-' And then Trump would just blame Obama for half-assing it.
I like how you reposted when no one responded to you.
Anyway, I don't understand how there isn't more discussion to these emails from Reuters.
That the White House was informed of a responsibility claim from the militants two hours after the attacks on Facebook and Twitter but continued exploring all possible options?
Only your partisan feelings will decide how you interpret that.
On October 25 2012 03:27 dp wrote: Swazi Spring, the things you are interested in, namely college papers and records might have been something to add to your reasoning for voting.. when he first ran. They don't matter now. You can piss and moan that they do, but that doesn't make it so. You have his first stretch as president to make an informed decision on how to vote. If he gets another four years, do you really think he is going to revert from his current ideologies to the ones he held in college?
This is just something used to rile up the uninformed or unintelligent. Its a smokescreen to the issues at hand, and every minute spent on it is a wasted one.
Also, this whole experience argument is funny as well. George W. Bush. How is that for modern? More? Ronald Reagan, Dwight Eisenhower, JFK, Jimmy Carter. etc etc etc. All white.
I've seen Obama's first term and I don't like what I've seen. I don't like our economy in shambles. I don't like our civil liberties being stripped away. I don't like America looking weak on the international stage. I don't like having American citizens being extra-judicially executed by our head of state. I don't like America abandoning our long-time allies (Israel and the UK). I don't like our president's constant attacks on hard-work and success. I don't like the massive expansion of the entitlement culture.
What makes you think his ideology ever seriously changed from when he was in college to today? What makes you think he isn't just hiding his true intentions until after the election?
Are you trying to make my point for me? There is already a foundation of ACTUAL things to make an informed decision on. Everything you wrote simply proves the point that his current time in office is the only thing that matters for a voter, not what happened during his college years. And if he is hiding his true intentions, what are they? What is this terrible thing he is planing on destroying America with?
Also, nice dodge on the abundance of presidents before him that had equal or less experience. A simple 'I was wrong' will suffice for me.
First article: He's made logical, informed and rational decisions during the time he's been in office, we know more about his early life than we do about most presidents thanks to the birthers, and republicans digging up any dirt they can on him from weed to life in other countries.
Second article: There's a hefty amount of half-truths and lies in there. Obama's record speaks for itself, with four years in office, we know a lot about his policies and ability. Starting with the third paragraph. I have no idea about the video and its implications, praising a man does not imply he's endorsing his views. Obama's praised romney plenty. Obama's also made relatively clear that the tax code gives the same deductions to businesses who move their business across states as moving them overseas. Elimination of the overseas deduction is the goal.
As before, we know more about his early life than most other presidents and it's readily available: compare for example
We know far more about Obama's time before the spotlight than we did about pretty much any other president. We have as much of a record of his policies and views as we did for clinton and bush. I don't see how anyone can read the first article fully and come to the same conclusion that limbaugh did.
George W. Bush * Son of president George H. W. Bush. * Governor of Texas. * Military veteran.
Bill Clinton * Governor of Arkansas. * Attorney General of Arkansas.
George H. W. Bush * Vice President of the United States. * Director of the CIA. * Chairman of the Republican National Committee. * United States Ambassador to the United Nations. * United States Ambassador to the People's Republic of China. * Member of the US House of Representatives. * Military veteran.
Ronald Reagan * Governor of California. * Campaign assistant to Barry Goldwater. * Military veteran. * Famous actor.
Jimmy Carter * Governor of Georgia. * Member of the Georgia Senate. * Military veteran.
Gerald Ford * Vice President of the United States. * US House of Representatives Minority Leader * Member of the US House of Representatives. * Military veteran.
Now lets look at Barack Obama... * 1 incomplete term as US Senator. * Member of the Illinois Senate.
It sounds like a reasonable offer to me. I only hope that Obama releases all of the papers he claims to have written in college.
Obama should just respond to Trump with: As President of the United States, I do not negotiate with terrorists.
Seriously. If Trump wants to donate to a charity, he can do that without trying to pull on political strings and jerk our fucking president around. What's next? First Lady pics in a thong for ten million dollars?
Trump's a jackass and an ignoramus when it comes to not letting go of stupid situations. He just wants the limelight, and thinking that someone has something to hide just because he won't entertain stupid and manipulative requests is missing the point. Trump's not being charitable; he's trying to blackmail Obama with non-existent bullshit by providing a lose-lose situation for him. Either Obama has to continue to show credibility on every single thing he's ever done (which takes away from campaign focus- not to mention the fact that he's still leading our country- and who said that our president has to check in with Trump?), or he looks like he's hiding something? Bullshit. Just don't play ball.
Also... Trump says "to my satisfaction"... = impossible anyway. Loophole -.-' And then Trump would just blame Obama for half-assing it.
I like how you reposted when no one responded to you.
Anyway, I don't understand how there isn't more discussion to these emails from Reuters.
That the White House was informed of a responsibility claim from the militants two hours after the attacks on Facebook and Twitter but continued exploring all possible options?
Only your partisan feelings will decide how you interpret that.
Love how someone questioning the administration's handling of the situation automatically makes someone partisan. For the record I voted for Obama in 08 but intend to write in a candidate because both of these men are unable to do the job.
Coming out and saying that the attack was in response to a video is not exploring all options when there is evidence, small but some, to the contrary is negligent at best.
On October 25 2012 04:18 Swazi Spring wrote: George W. Bush * Son of president George H. W. Bush. * Governor of Texas. * Military veteran.
Bill Clinton * Governor of Arkansas. * Attorney General of Arkansas.
George H. W. Bush * Vice President of the United States. * Director of the CIA. * Chairman of the Republican National Committee. * United States Ambassador to the United Nations. * United States Ambassador to the People's Republic of China. * Member of the US House of Representatives. * Military veteran.
Ronald Reagan * Governor of California. * Campaign assistant to Barry Goldwater. * Military veteran. * Famous actor.
Jimmy Carter * Governor of Georgia. * Member of the Georgia Senate. * Military veteran.
Gerald Ford * Vice President of the United States. * US House of Representatives Minority Leader * Member of the US House of Representatives. * Military veteran.
Now lets look at Barack Obama... * 1 incomplete term as US Senator. * Member of the Illinois Senate.
America voted Obama into the whitehouse in 2008. You could make a strong case of inexperience and lack of knowledge back then. After being the POTUS for four years, he is hardly unknown and has gained as much experience as he needs to lead america again.
Inexperience is a separate case from mystery. Any accusations that we don't know obama now are literally just distractions, as much as the birther issue was.
If the GOP were smart, they'd cut any ties they have with Trump. He's a complete joke that just makes them look bad every time he opens his mouth on a political issue. Anyone demanding Obama's transcripts from 30 years ago be released is a complete idiot. Furthermore, Romney still hasn't released his tax forms from the past decade (aside from 2011). I think that information is a lot more relevant to this election.
On October 25 2012 03:42 jdsowa wrote: The American people are naturally conservative. Conservative in the sense of wanting to preserve the status quo.
The average voter is a middle-aged person who just wants to go to and from work, take their kids to soccer practice and come home and fall alseep in front of the TV without any hassles along the way. They don't want government supports taken away, they don't want the concept of marriage as they know it to change overnight, and they don't want to worry that other countries might attack us.
If a politician proposes any policies that would even possibly suggest to threaten that lifestyle with even a very slight hiccup, then the average voter will simply reject that politician.
The two party system completely covers the spectrum of acceptable mainstream politics, and exceeds it in many cases. The fact that it exceeds it at all--that there are Democrats and Republicans that have views that lie far outside of the mainstream--is evidence that a national 3rd party candidate can never truly be viable. You can buy TV time and generate temporary amusement, but a majority will never cast their vote for you.
Since a national politician can't afford to express too many views outside of the status quo, they have to spend a great deal of their time pretending. And since each guy does an equal share of pretending, and because their policies can't diverge too far from the mainstream, the American people make their decision based on which guy is more charismatic while still being adequately presidential. Ultimately, Barack Obama is that guy.
That was a pretty interesting and mostly accurate post, but Obama has been pretty radical for someone who "represents the status quo" as you suggested. Universal healthcare, banning guns, amnesty for illegals, and abandoning our long-time allies are pretty radical ideas that are far-removed from the mainstream political discourse.
I've yet to see any evidence of either of these.
Prior to running for president, Obama voted in favor of several gun control laws and made several anti-gun statements, ranging from a complete ban on hand-guns to a complete ban on semi-automatic guns to a complete ban on "assault weapons" to making it so you can only buy one handgun a month, and much much more. He also said that he disagrees with DC vs. Heller. He also said that he is opposed to the right to carry. As president he said he is going to re-instate the (now-expired) Federal Assault Weapons Ban and that he wanted "stricter gun control law," but he didn't elaborate on what he meant by that.
Those are two small issues with two specific countries. There is nothing at all to suggest a general trend. Overall he is still significantly more popular in most of the US allied countries, than Bush or Romney are/were.
On October 25 2012 04:07 jdsowa wrote: His private position on guns might be a complete ban, but his public position is to ban semi-autos but keep handguns and rifles legal to preserve the 2nd amendment. I think that's probably pretty much a reflection of mainstream thought. Most people don't see the value of semi-autos.
He admitted that he supports a complete ban on handguns and semi-autos. Since when is banning semi-automatic weapons "mainstream?" Most liberals don't even want to do that, all of the evidence and the polls show that Americans are moving further and further IN FAVOR of looser gun laws, not the other way around.
It sounds like a reasonable offer to me. I only hope that Obama releases all of the papers he claims to have written in college.
Obama should just respond to Trump with: As President of the United States, I do not negotiate with terrorists.
Seriously. If Trump wants to donate to a charity, he can do that without trying to pull on political strings and jerk our fucking president around. What's next? First Lady pics in a thong for ten million dollars?
Trump's a jackass and an ignoramus when it comes to not letting go of stupid situations. He just wants the limelight, and thinking that someone has something to hide just because he won't entertain stupid and manipulative requests is missing the point. Trump's not being charitable; he's trying to blackmail Obama with non-existent bullshit by providing a lose-lose situation for him. Either Obama has to continue to show credibility on every single thing he's ever done (which takes away from campaign focus- not to mention the fact that he's still leading our country- and who said that our president has to check in with Trump?), or he looks like he's hiding something? Bullshit. Just don't play ball.
Also... Trump says "to my satisfaction"... = impossible anyway. Loophole -.-' And then Trump would just blame Obama for half-assing it.
I like how you reposted when no one responded to you.
Anyway, I don't understand how there isn't more discussion to these emails from Reuters.
That the White House was informed of a responsibility claim from the militants two hours after the attacks on Facebook and Twitter but continued exploring all possible options?
Only your partisan feelings will decide how you interpret that.
Love how someone questioning the administration's handling of the situation automatically makes someone partisan. For the record I voted for Obama in 08 but intend to write in a candidate because both of these men are unable to do the job.
Coming out and saying that the attack was in response to a video is not exploring all options when there is evidence, small but some, to the contrary is negligent at best.
I'm not saying that you're "partisan." I'm saying that if you like Obama you'll spin the story entirely differently than if you don't like him, especially given the surplus of contradictory evidence around the events. There's nothing meaningful to discuss; I mean, there are members of the state department now saying that the attacks were opportunistic in response to the video after thorough investigation. Does that fit with saying the attack was in response to the video? To me it does. To someone else it doesn't. It's entirely personal perspective and mostly based on what you already believe, rather than new evidence.
I mean, hell, I found out from government and news reports it was an opportunistic response 8 hours after the attacks.
Edit: I do find it bizarre that having partisan feelings is now somehow a bad thing. A vitriolic political environment is worse, but one in which you're ashamed to side with any party is pretty bad.
I don't like the assertion that Obama has abandoned our allies. He has dialed down our bromance with Israel and that's a good thing. We don't need to be rushing blindly to defend Israel every god damn time something comes up and they are pretty secure with just the promise of the US defending them if attacked. Thats the part of the problem in the middle east we favor one country then say fuck off to the rest. The UK? Uh pretty much the same as we ever had with them. Weak on the international stage? You do realize that most of the american people are getting as sick of being all up in the worlds business as the rest of the world has been for the past 2-3 decades. Also he has nothing really to do with expanding or contracting the "entitlement culture" that has come into being. Plus the Economy IS recovering slowly but surely, and while he probably can't take much credit it is going in the right direction but it takes a while to recover from things like that.
On October 25 2012 03:42 jdsowa wrote: The American people are naturally conservative. Conservative in the sense of wanting to preserve the status quo.
The average voter is a middle-aged person who just wants to go to and from work, take their kids to soccer practice and come home and fall alseep in front of the TV without any hassles along the way. They don't want government supports taken away, they don't want the concept of marriage as they know it to change overnight, and they don't want to worry that other countries might attack us.
If a politician proposes any policies that would even possibly suggest to threaten that lifestyle with even a very slight hiccup, then the average voter will simply reject that politician.
The two party system completely covers the spectrum of acceptable mainstream politics, and exceeds it in many cases. The fact that it exceeds it at all--that there are Democrats and Republicans that have views that lie far outside of the mainstream--is evidence that a national 3rd party candidate can never truly be viable. You can buy TV time and generate temporary amusement, but a majority will never cast their vote for you.
Since a national politician can't afford to express too many views outside of the status quo, they have to spend a great deal of their time pretending. And since each guy does an equal share of pretending, and because their policies can't diverge too far from the mainstream, the American people make their decision based on which guy is more charismatic while still being adequately presidential. Ultimately, Barack Obama is that guy.
That was a pretty interesting and mostly accurate post, but Obama has been pretty radical for someone who "represents the status quo" as you suggested. Universal healthcare, banning guns, amnesty for illegals, and abandoning our long-time allies are pretty radical ideas that are far-removed from the mainstream political discourse.
You are so uninformed it hurts my eyes. Obama has been very pro-guns.
Name one single thing that Obama has done to restrict access to guns while president.
Here let me answer this one for you: You're going to ignore this post because you have nothing. Just like every other time you've been shown to be completely wrong you just deflect and ignore.
George W. Bush * Son of president George H. W. Bush. * Governor of Texas. * Military veteran.
Bill Clinton * Governor of Arkansas. * Attorney General of Arkansas.
George H. W. Bush * Vice President of the United States. * Director of the CIA. * Chairman of the Republican National Committee. * United States Ambassador to the United Nations. * United States Ambassador to the People's Republic of China. * Member of the US House of Representatives. * Military veteran.
Ronald Reagan * Governor of California. * Campaign assistant to Barry Goldwater. * Military veteran. * Famous actor.
Jimmy Carter * Governor of Georgia. * Member of the Georgia Senate. * Military veteran.
Gerald Ford * Vice President of the United States. * US House of Representatives Minority Leader * Member of the US House of Representatives. * Military veteran.
Now lets look at Barack Obama... * 1 incomplete term as US Senator. * Member of the Illinois Senate.
xDaunt *Resolute conservative *Frequent hurler of partisan derision *Large number of substantive posts backing his position in his own words
JonnyBNoHo *Fiscal conservative *Likes to talk hard numbers and economics *Large number of substantive posts backing his position in his own words
parallelluniverse *Seemingly liberal *Aussie economics guy *Large number of substantive posts backing his position in his own words
Defacer *Canadian liberal *Likes bipartisan discussion, sometimes even panders to it *Large number of substantive posts backing his position in his own words
Now lets look at Swazi Spring *cites blogs and punditry as fact *enjoys reveling in talking points rather than issues or policies ........?
Sorry to the faceless of blob of liberal posters like souma, TheTenthDoc, kwizach, leporello, and doublereed. You are all the same to me
is this a legit representation of intrades odds right now? Its showing that it thinks romney is going to win the election now.
Intrade odds are actually higher for Obama right now than they were this morning (pre-Trump "bombshell"). Romney winning is just vacillation on Ohio, as near as I can tell, and people trying to cash in.
Edit: I suspect a few people just jumped the gun on a Rasmussen Ohio poll showing a tie.
Stuff like this doesn't seem overly conservative. The links that are posted are pretty strongly biased in the same way that /r/politics is but the comments are largely rational
Mainly just conservative stances with logic backing them up. I'm not seeing the blind adherence to every word of o'reilly and limbaugh that's spouted. It looks to upvote anything that could potentially be scandalous and then in the comments section refute most claims. Pretty decent place to start I guess since it's essentially /r/politics from the other side.
"Most Americans support the right to use deadly force to protect themselves - even in public places - and have a favorable view of the National Rifle Association, the main gun-lobby group, a Reuters/Ipsos poll showed."
is this a legit representation of intrades odds right now? Its showing that it thinks romney is going to win the election now.
Intrade odds are actually higher for Obama right now than they were this morning (pre-Trump "bombshell"). Romney winning is just vacillation on Ohio, as near as I can tell, and people trying to cash in.
Edit: I suspect a few people just jumped the gun on a Rasmussen Ohio poll showing a tie.
Stuff like this doesn't seem overly conservative. The links that are posted are pretty strongly biased in the same way that /r/politics is but the comments are largely rational
Mainly just conservative stances with logic backing them up. I'm not seeing the blind adherence to every word of o'reilly and limbaugh that's spouted. It looks to upvote anything that could potentially be scandalous and then in the comments section refute most claims. Pretty decent place to start I guess since it's essentially /r/politics from the other side.
Uh, I wasn't really commentating on the reliability of /r/conservative, mostly the intrade odds. I don't do reddit, so I have no idea which is worse regarding facts.
On October 25 2012 04:37 Swazi Spring wrote: "Most Americans support the right to use deadly force to protect themselves - even in public places - and have a favorable view of the National Rifle Association, the main gun-lobby group, a Reuters/Ipsos poll showed."
Second paragraph of the Reuters article: "However, there was also strong support from respondents for background checks as well as limiting the sale of automatic weapons and keeping guns out of churches, stores and workplaces."
It sounds like a reasonable offer to me. I only hope that Obama releases all of the papers he claims to have written in college.
Obama should just respond to Trump with: As President of the United States, I do not negotiate with terrorists.
Seriously. If Trump wants to donate to a charity, he can do that without trying to pull on political strings and jerk our fucking president around. What's next? First Lady pics in a thong for ten million dollars?
Trump's a jackass and an ignoramus when it comes to not letting go of stupid situations. He just wants the limelight, and thinking that someone has something to hide just because he won't entertain stupid and manipulative requests is missing the point. Trump's not being charitable; he's trying to blackmail Obama with non-existent bullshit by providing a lose-lose situation for him. Either Obama has to continue to show credibility on every single thing he's ever done (which takes away from campaign focus- not to mention the fact that he's still leading our country- and who said that our president has to check in with Trump?), or he looks like he's hiding something? Bullshit. Just don't play ball.
Also... Trump says "to my satisfaction"... = impossible anyway. Loophole -.-' And then Trump would just blame Obama for half-assing it.
I like how you reposted when no one responded to you.
Anyway, I don't understand how there isn't more discussion to these emails from Reuters.
That the White House was informed of a responsibility claim from the militants two hours after the attacks on Facebook and Twitter but continued exploring all possible options?
Only your partisan feelings will decide how you interpret that.
Love how someone questioning the administration's handling of the situation automatically makes someone partisan. For the record I voted for Obama in 08 but intend to write in a candidate because both of these men are unable to do the job.
Coming out and saying that the attack was in response to a video is not exploring all options when there is evidence, small but some, to the contrary is negligent at best.
I'm not saying that you're "partisan." I'm saying that if you like Obama you'll spin the story entirely differently than if you don't like him, especially given the surplus of contradictory evidence around the events. There's nothing meaningful to discuss; I mean, there are members of the state department now saying that the attacks were opportunistic in response to the video after thorough investigation. Does that fit with saying the attack was in response to the video? To me it does. To someone else it doesn't. It's entirely personal perspective and mostly based on what you already believe, rather than new evidence.
I mean, hell, I found out from government and news reports it was an opportunistic response 8 hours after the attacks.
Edit: I do find it bizarre that having partisan feelings is now somehow a bad thing. A vitriolic political environment is worse, but one in which you're ashamed to side with any party is pretty bad.
I see your point now. I assumed you were saying I was questioning only because I dislike the president. I apologize for that.
To me the video story doesn't add up. I don't find it believable and probably won't unless there is some hard proof out there.
I really do not enjoy the political environment that we live in. People are too concerned with one side or the other. So on that I would say we disagree on how ba partisanship is.
On October 25 2012 04:37 Swazi Spring wrote: "Most Americans support the right to use deadly force to protect themselves - even in public places - and have a favorable view of the National Rifle Association, the main gun-lobby group, a Reuters/Ipsos poll showed."
However, there was also strong support from respondents for background checks as well as limiting the sale of automatic weapons and keeping guns out of churches, stores and workplaces.
On October 25 2012 03:42 jdsowa wrote: The American people are naturally conservative. Conservative in the sense of wanting to preserve the status quo.
The average voter is a middle-aged person who just wants to go to and from work, take their kids to soccer practice and come home and fall alseep in front of the TV without any hassles along the way. They don't want government supports taken away, they don't want the concept of marriage as they know it to change overnight, and they don't want to worry that other countries might attack us.
If a politician proposes any policies that would even possibly suggest to threaten that lifestyle with even a very slight hiccup, then the average voter will simply reject that politician.
The two party system completely covers the spectrum of acceptable mainstream politics, and exceeds it in many cases. The fact that it exceeds it at all--that there are Democrats and Republicans that have views that lie far outside of the mainstream--is evidence that a national 3rd party candidate can never truly be viable. You can buy TV time and generate temporary amusement, but a majority will never cast their vote for you.
Since a national politician can't afford to express too many views outside of the status quo, they have to spend a great deal of their time pretending. And since each guy does an equal share of pretending, and because their policies can't diverge too far from the mainstream, the American people make their decision based on which guy is more charismatic while still being adequately presidential. Ultimately, Barack Obama is that guy.
That was a pretty interesting and mostly accurate post, but Obama has been pretty radical for someone who "represents the status quo" as you suggested. Universal healthcare, banning guns, amnesty for illegals, and abandoning our long-time allies are pretty radical ideas that are far-removed from the mainstream political discourse.
I've yet to see any evidence of either of these.
Prior to running for president, Obama voted in favor of several gun control laws and made several anti-gun statements, ranging from a complete ban on hand-guns to a complete ban on semi-automatic guns to a complete ban on "assault weapons" to making it so you can only buy one handgun a month, and much much more. He also said that he disagrees with DC vs. Heller. He also said that he is opposed to the right to carry. As president he said he is going to re-instate the (now-expired) Federal Assault Weapons Ban and that he wanted "stricter gun control law," but he didn't elaborate on what he meant by that.
Those are two small issues with two specific countries. There is nothing at all to suggest a general trend. Overall he is still significantly more popular in most of the US allied countries, than Bush or Romney are/were.
To be fair Europe is mostly liberal especially compared to the US. It doesn't really matter who is the candidate for republican or democrats the more liberal one will almost always be more popular in Europe
EPT
