Republicans see Obama as more imminent threat than Putin

[AUUSN 823]

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A third of Republicans believe President Barack Obama poses an imminent threat to the United States, outranking concerns about Russian President Vladimir Putin and Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.

A Reuters/Ipsos online poll this month asked 2,809 Americans to rate how much of a threat a list of countries, organizations and individuals posed to the United States on a scale of 1 to 5, with one being no threat and 5 being an imminent threat.

The poll showed 34 percent of Republicans ranked Obama as an imminent threat, ahead of Putin (25 percent), who has been accused of aggression in the Ukraine, and Assad (23 percent). Western governments have alleged that Assad used chlorine gas and barrel bombs on his own citizens.

Given the level of polarization in American politics the results are not that surprising, said Barry Glassner, a sociologist and author of "The Culture of Fear: Why Americans are afraid of the wrong things."

"There tends to be a lot of demonizing of the person who is in the office," Glassner said, adding that "fear mongering" by the Republican and Democratic parties would be a mainstay of the U.S. 2016 presidential campaign.

"The TV media here, and American politics, very much trade on fears," he said.

The Ipsos survey, done between March 16 and March 24, included 1,083 Democrats and 1,059 Republicans.

Twenty-seven percent of Republicans saw the Democratic Party as an imminent threat to the United States, and 22 percent of Democrats deemed Republicans to be an imminent threat.

People who were polled were most concerned about threats related to potential terror attacks. Islamic State militants were rated an imminent threat by 58 percent of respondents, and al Qaeda by 43 percent. North Korean Leader Kim Jong Un was viewed as a threat by 34 percent, and Iran's Ayatollah Ali Khamenei by 27 percent.

Cyber attacks were viewed as an imminent threat by 39 percent, and drug trafficking was seen as an imminent threat by a third of the respondents.

Democrats were more concerned about climate change than Republicans, with 33 percent of Democrats rating global warming an imminent threat. Among Republicans, 27 percent said climate change was not a threat at all.

The data was weighted to reflect the U.S. population and has a credibility interval, a measure of accuracy, of plus or minus 2.1 percentage points for all adults (3.4 points for Democrats and 3.4 points for Republicans.)

[WarTim 3,456]

What's your point?

[cooltigger21 0]

What's your point?

Don't mind him. He's just an Obama sycophant. Obama can do no wrong in his eyes. He's the best thing to happen to the world ever. If those dastardly republicans would quit opposing him (never mind the fact that he's gotten everything he ever wanted) we'd have utopia. The world would love us and there would be peace on earth and everyone would be happy because discrimination would end and there would be no more poverty and those evil rich people would be dealt with. What's funny is, that as a member of the military, he is part of something that Obama despises.

[Mims44 1,872]

Kinda strange only 1/3 of demo's see global warming as a threat, and only around 1/4 of republicans DON'T see it as a threat.

I would have thought those numbers would have been higher.

[AUUSN 823]

What's your point?

Don't mind him. He's just an Obama sycophant. Obama can do no wrong in his eyes. He's the best thing to happen to the world ever. If those dastardly republicans would quit opposing him (never mind the fact that he's gotten everything he ever wanted) we'd have utopia. The world would love us and there would be peace on earth and everyone would be happy because discrimination would end and there would be no more poverty and those evil rich people would be dealt with. What's funny is, that as a member of the military, he is part of something that Obama despises.

[AUUSN 823]

What's your point?

My point is you see Obama as a more imminent threat than Putin....

[Mikey 16,614]

It's not only Republicans that think Obama is a bigger threat to the U.S. than Putin. Anybody that spends 15 objective minutes thinking on the subject comes to the same conclusion.

[quietfan 233]

It's not only Republicans that think Obama is a bigger threat to the U.S. than Putin. Anybody that spends 15 objective minutes thinking on the subject comes to the same conclusion.

And you base this conclusion on what 'objective' evidence?

Obviously, a majority of American voters did not see Obama as a threat to the country when they re-elected him in 2012. Are you implying that the majority of American voters won't spend 15 objective minutes looking at the candidates? Is there any evidence that Romney voters were any more objective? And would Putin have polled as well in a U.S. election?

[TheBlueVue 177]

What's your point?

Don't mind him. He's just an Obama sycophant. Obama can do no wrong in his eyes. He's the best thing to happen to the world ever. If those dastardly republicans would quit opposing him (never mind the fact that he's gotten everything he ever wanted) we'd have utopia. The world would love us and there would be peace on earth and everyone would be happy because discrimination would end and there would be no more poverty and those evil rich people would be dealt with. What's funny is, that as a member of the military, he is part of something that Obama despises.

Lost in all of this is the ironic fact that Obama actually treats Iranian sponsors of terror better than he does conservatives. It has been said, aside from climate change, republicans are a bigger threat to America than ISIS is. If one honestly evaluates Obama actions with a clear head its not hard to conclude he's playing for the other team.

[TheBlueVue 177]

It's not only Republicans that think Obama is a bigger threat to the U.S. than Putin. Anybody that spends 15 objective minutes thinking on the subject comes to the same conclusion.

And you base this conclusion on what 'objective' evidence?

Obviously, a majority of American voters did not see Obama as a threat to the country when they re-elected him in 2012. Are you implying that the majority of American voters won't spend 15 objective minutes looking at the candidates? Is there any evidence that Romney voters were any more objective? And would Putin have polled as well in a U.S. election?

I hate to break it to you but there is a huge contingency of Obama supporters who are experiencing serious buyer's remorse. Indeed he got elected but a growing number of those folks believe just about ANYONE could've done a better job than what he has done.

[quietfan 233]

Lost in all of this is the ironic fact that Obama actually treats Iranian sponsors of terror better than he does conservatives. It has been said, aside from climate change, republicans are a bigger threat to America than ISIS is. If one honestly evaluates Obama actions with a clear head its not hard to conclude he's playing for the other team.

Said by whom? Got an objective link?

Also, have any actual examples of Obama treating Iran better than conservatives in this country? Specific actions, please.

[TheBlueVue 177]

Lost in all of this is the ironic fact that Obama actually treats Iranian sponsors of terror better than he does conservatives. It has been said, aside from climate change, republicans are a bigger threat to America than ISIS is. If one honestly evaluates Obama actions with a clear head its not hard to conclude he's playing for the other team.

Said by whom? Got an objective link?

Also, have any actual examples of Obama treating Iran better than conservatives in this country? Specific actions, please.

Nancy Pelosi for one..on the House floor no less. Look it up yourself if you're seriously interested. its there. As far as the second question thats real easy. How many times has Obama conceded ANYTHING to the republican party? He has conceded nearly every single demand on the Iranians trying to get this nuclear deal done. FACT

[alexava 6,973]

What's your point?

Don't mind him. He's just an Obama sycophant. Obama can do no wrong in his eyes. He's the best thing to happen to the world ever. If those dastardly republicans would quit opposing him (never mind the fact that he's gotten everything he ever wanted) we'd have utopia. The world would love us and there would be peace on earth and everyone would be happy because discrimination would end and there would be no more poverty and those evil rich people would be dealt with. What's funny is, that as a member of the military, he is part of something that Obama despises.

Lost in all of this is the ironic fact that Obama actually treats Iranian sponsors of terror better than he does conservatives. It has been said, aside from climate change, republicans are a bigger threat to America than ISIS is. If one honestly evaluates Obama actions with a clear head its not hard to conclude he's playing for the other team.

republicans created isis. Sometimes it seems like they are happy about the situation.

[cooltigger21 0]

What's your point?

Don't mind him. He's just an Obama sycophant. Obama can do no wrong in his eyes. He's the best thing to happen to the world ever. If those dastardly republicans would quit opposing him (never mind the fact that he's gotten everything he ever wanted) we'd have utopia. The world would love us and there would be peace on earth and everyone would be happy because discrimination would end and there would be no more poverty and those evil rich people would be dealt with. What's funny is, that as a member of the military, he is part of something that Obama despises.

Lost in all of this is the ironic fact that Obama actually treats Iranian sponsors of terror better than he does conservatives. It has been said, aside from climate change, republicans are a bigger threat to America than ISIS is. If one honestly evaluates Obama actions with a clear head its not hard to conclude he's playing for the other team.

republicans created isis. Sometimes it seems like they are happy about the situation.

Where do you get that line of bs? They came about because of the power vaccum left when we vacated Iraq prematurely. They've always been there but once we were gone they had a free reign. This administration backed the wrong man in Iraq. They didn't do anything to help the uprising in Iran. It's not just ISIS. You miss the wider point though. Iran, Isis, Putin, China, every tyrant and dictator in the world know they have free reign from this administration. Iran has always been there stirring up trouble and Obama has coddled them and appeased them. Putin knows he can undermine the nations that were once part of the Soviet Union and put them back under the thumb of Russia. Obama is the best friend a tyrant ever had.

[alexava 6,973]

21,We had the rigjt man in Iraq. His name was Saddam Hussein. We don't have to like him. We are now just trying to get it back to that condition. I have said before i don't trust anyone in the ME. We can't set up permanently in Iraq or anywhere else for that matter. There was no terrorism coming from iraq. Yes Saddam was evil. Nearly every dictator in the region is. So yes we created isis but they are just one player in the hornets nest which is the ME. You argue we left too soon. The big picture is we never should have been there, if we are to learn from the situation.

[autigeremt 6,641]

A nation divided against itself will surely fall from within.

Drum major.....you have the con.

[Mikey 16,614]

It's not only Republicans that think Obama is a bigger threat to the U.S. than Putin. Anybody that spends 15 objective minutes thinking on the subject comes to the same conclusion.

And you base this conclusion on what 'objective' evidence?

Obviously, a majority of American voters did not see Obama as a threat to the country when they re-elected him in 2012. Are you implying that the majority of American voters won't spend 15 objective minutes looking at the candidates? Is there any evidence that Romney voters were any more objective? And would Putin have polled as well in a U.S. election?

That is exactly what I'm saying. Enough voters didn't think at all, let alone spend 15 minutes at it. The only thing they were interested in was doing what they were told to do.

[AURaptor 1,125]

He is .

And water is wet.

[cptau 169]

21,We had the rigjt man in Iraq. His name was Saddam Hussein. We don't have to like him. We are now just trying to get it back to that condition. I have said before i don't trust anyone in the ME. We can't set up permanently in Iraq or anywhere else for that matter. There was no terrorism coming from iraq. Yes Saddam was evil. Nearly every dictator in the region is. So yes we created isis but they are just one player in the hornets nest which is the ME. You argue we left too soon. The big picture is we never should have been there, if we are to learn from the situation.

Based on that the British and French should have just left the old Ottoman Empire in place at the end of WWI. The ottomans were running all of what became iraq, Syria, Jordan, Lebanon and Israel.

[caleb1633 1,418]

Any president has a potential to be a bigger threat to the country than a foreign threat. Think about who could honestly do the most damage if they tried. So if Obama does, in fact, want to harm the country he can do it easier than Putin.

[cooltigger21 0]

Alex you still want to argue the original invasion. As an exercise in history and a lesson for the future ok it's fine. What we're dealing with is the here and now. Just as a side note ISIS was originally known as Al Qaeda in Iraq and they were there before we went in. There is some evidence that Saddam was giving safe haven to Al Qaeda and letting them train there. It's not as cut and dried that going in was the mistake some want to say it is.

Even if you are right, we did go, in so the question then shifts to how you keep it from getting to the point we are in now. We had it stabilized and then Obama, in a rush to keep his campaign promise, pulled out before they were ready to handle it themselves.

Now he's wanting to make a deal with Iran that allows them to keep enriching uranium and continue with their ballistic missile program. They intend to wipe out Israel which I know just pleases you unto no end. He's let Putin run wild and just pick off bits and pieces of the old Soviet republics.

America cannot just pull out of the world and only do something if we are threatened or attacked. He won't even do something then but with our unique place in the world we have the capability and I dare say responsibility to help defend freedom around the world. When we abandon our leadership responsibilities then we see the results we have now.

[alexava 6,973]

21, it's a fact al qeda in Iraq was a result of the invasion not the cause. That is what happens when people are unjustly attacked. They fight back and usually will take any ally they can get. I don't have time to respond in full.

[AURaptor 1,125]

Imminent . I recall the Left making a fuss over that word not too long ago.

[cooltigger21 0]

21, it's a fact al qeda in Iraq was a result of the invasion not the cause. That is what happens when people are unjustly attacked. They fight back and usually will take any ally they can get. I don't have time to respond in full.

They were already there. Saddam was giving alQaeda safe haven in return for not attacking him in all probability. We had Iraq under control. They couldn't yet handle their own security though and then we bugged out. It's not just Iraq though. Iran has been a major problem for nearly 40 years. Even had we left Saddam in place they would still be causing the same trouble they are now.You can't just focus on Iraq and say had we not done that then we wouldn't have any problems.

[alexava 6,973]

21, it's a fact al qeda in Iraq was a result of the invasion not the cause. That is what happens when people are unjustly attacked. They fight back and usually will take any ally they can get. I don't have time to respond in full.

They were already there. Saddam was giving alQaeda safe haven in return for not attacking him in all probability. We had Iraq under control. They couldn't yet handle their own security though and then we bugged out. It's not just Iraq though. Iran has been a major problem for nearly 40 years. Even had we left Saddam in place they would still be causing the same trouble they are now.You can't just focus on Iraq and say had we not done that then we wouldn't have any problems.

it would be someone else's problem. But hell at only a billion $ a day. Counless lives and limbs and minds that we don't even cover the cost of care for. Why not just create reasons to stay in perpetual war. You said yourself they don't have to be a threat.