U.S. Presidential race - Democrat Discussion

[Sunseeker]

So who are you basing your information from? Obama? Ya he is really beleaveable he would never lie.

Generally speaking, if you're accusing someone of doing or saying something, it's best to go straight to the source and see if he actually said/did that. Taking other people's word for someone saying something is really just a good way to bullshit yourself.

[Spectral]

I don't know if anyone has mentioned this (someone probably did), but voter identification moves in flux with who the person says they're voting for. In other words, people that say they're voting for Obama will ID as Democrat, even if not registered as such, and vice versa. As such, trying to tease out "true" party affiliation to determine turnout effects is nonsense.

[Wells]

I suggest you go read the book called the Amateur written by Bob Woodward, You do Know who Bob Woodward is don't you? the reporter who broke open the Watergate scandal so he sure cant be described as some right wing hack

According to his own site he has never written a book by that name.

[smelltheglove]

So who are you basing your information from?

i could ask you the same question. especially considering the health care bill is the same one proposed by republicans. fool that obama is, he actually took the GOP plan pretty much in its entirety and tried to get them to play nice. gone was the idea of universal health care, all to appease a group that get even more rabid when he did what they said they wanted.

let's look at this: he gives them what they wanted, and he's the partisan? the GOP gets together and makes a PUBLIC pledge to ensure he is a 1 termer BEFORE he even took office, and he's the partisan?

jesus christ, you will simply believe whatever the fuck you want, and to hell with the facts. im done with you, after the 6th you can go console yourself with your bumper sticker collection or something

[Vyxn]

Generally speaking, if you're accusing someone of doing or saying something, it's best to go straight to the source and see if he actually said/did that. Taking other people's word for someone saying something is really just a good way to bullshit yourself.

yep typical response from a true believer a Obama Kool-aid drinker
It is pointless and a waste of time to discuss anything with you because No matter what information i give no matter what facts i provide your response will be O YA Obama says different so you are wrong

Infracted

[Wells]

You've been very politely asked for citations for the claims you've made on several occasions and have yet to do so once. Its rather poor form to then turn around and accuse people of cult like behavior when they're not buying your unsourced claims.

[Spectral]

Why in the world are people still arguing with this guy?

[Vyxn]

According to his own site he has never written a book by that name.

My Mistake i got the Book title wrong the book was called The Price of Politics ive read so many books in the last few years i get them confused
But that book The Price of Politics does describe how Obama did snub the republicans. thanks for pointing out my mistake and allowing me to make a correction

PS I also suggest the Amateur it is also a good book written by Edward Klein it also gives you good insight of the disfunction in the Obama white house

[Puremallace]

Found this new video

[Wells]

Yes I've actually read the Price of Politics and you're given an incredibly bullshit ridden summation of it, to the point where I doubt you actually read the book and instead are just parroting some other site. The book goes on forever about how hard Obama worked at negotiating with Boehner, details all the concessions he offered on entitlement cuts and how the GOP cock blocked him on everything he wanted in exchange. It was Boehner that refused to negotiate.

[Orbitus]

Yes I've actually read the Price of Politics and you're given an incredibly bullshit ridden summation of it, to the point where I doubt you actually read the book and instead are just parroting some other site. The book goes on forever about how hard Obama worked at negotiating with Boehner, details all the concessions he offered on entitlement cuts and how the GOP cock blocked him on everything he wanted in exchange. It was Boehner that refused to negotiate.

And Wells wins again.

[Vyxn]

Yes I've actually read the Price of Politics and you're given an incredibly bullshit ridden summation of it, to the point where I doubt you actually read the book and instead are just parroting some other site. The book goes on forever about how hard Obama worked at negotiating with Boehner, details all the concessions he offered on entitlement cuts and how the GOP cock blocked him on everything he wanted in exchange. It was Boehner that refused to negotiate.

You are so wrong if you would have read the book you would have read that Obama and Boehner came to a deal then latter that day Obama called Boehner and demanded more taxes then what they originally agreed apon. Boehner didn't call back directly but when he did call he refused the new offer and said I've already given in to much already and Obama had a hissy fit

[Wells]

Boehner flat refused any tax increases and ignored Obama's calls for extended periods of time in the middle of negotiations. Obama lost his temper over that. I would too.

---------- Post added 2012-11-03 at 12:10 AM ----------

In fact as per this summary and review in the Boston Globe:
http://www.bostonglobe.com/arts/book...60I/story.html

His account relates that Obama, negotiating one-on-one with Boehner, displayed surprising flexibility in giving in to Republican demands for spending cuts to entitlements, while Republicans refused to consider tax increases for those making over $250,000.

Eventually, Boehner simply stops returning Obama’s phone calls and summarily pulls out of negotiations. Instead, Boehner tries unsuccessfully to cut a deal with Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid.

[Lenonis]

It's quite clear that Vyxn has no interest in having an honest conversation. Any sources, figures, charts, or facts you bring up gets dismissed as lies while s/he refuses to cite anything s/he is saying. It's almost textbook confirmation bias...which is definitely interesting to read.

[Wells]

Since he's been the subject of much discussion on this board recently.

Pretty good article on Nate Silver and the band of pants on head howler monkeys he's in "competition" with.

[Vyxn]

Wrong again just more proof you didn't read the book also are you for real you want to post an opinion page about the book from one of the most liberal news papers in the country

here is an exact excerpt from the book

"Obama succeeded in getting Boehner to tentatively agree to as much as $800 billion in new revenue, a major concession, only to surprise the speaker with a request for an additional $400 billion as their negotiations neared the final stages."


http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/...d-boehner-says

I will even give a soures you cant claim to being a right wing

[Wells]

He got Boehner to agree to ill defined "tax reforms" not actual tax increases.

[conscript]

Found this new video

Good to hear directly from his mouth he believes that we should force his religious beliefs on all Americans.

---------- Post added 2012-11-02 at 08:33 PM ----------

Wrong again just more proof you didn't read the book also are you for real you want to post an opinion page about the book from one of the most liberal news papers in the country

here is an exact excerpt from the book

"Obama succeeded in getting Boehner to tentatively agree to as much as $800 billion in new revenue, a major concession, only to surprise the speaker with a request for an additional $400 billion as their negotiations neared the final stages."


http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/...d-boehner-says

I will even give a soures you cant claim to being a right wing

Feel free to finish the quote and not cherry pick.

"Obama succeeded in getting Boehner to tentatively agree to as much as $800 billion in new revenue, a major concession, only to surprise the speaker with a request for an additional $400 billion as their negotiations neared the final stages. Unable to muster support among his lieutenants for such a proposal, Boehner ducked the president's phone calls before pulling out of the talks for good.

"Obama reacted angrily to Boehner's refusal to take his calls, according to Woodward, telling the speaker when they talked next: 'That's not a reason to cut off the conversation. I asked you to consider it. And you never got back to me.'

" 'He was spewing coals,' Boehner told Woodward in the interview."

Obama asked him to consider it, Boehner couldn't get his ducks in a row to agree to it and instead of continuing negotiations he hid from the President.

---------- Post added 2012-11-02 at 08:46 PM ----------

Since he's been the subject of much discussion on this board recently.

Pretty good article on Nate Silver and the band of pants on head howler monkeys he's in "competition" with.

I would love to hear someone explain to me how the Princeton guy cited in the article is also flawed for predicting Obama with a 97-99% certainty to win the election. The guy was exactly on and off by one electorate in the last two elections. That article is great by the way. Does a great job of unveiling the myth that national polls mean jack squat, yet we all know that point will be ignored since Gallup's national poll showing Romney winning is literally their last strand to cling to.

[Wells]

The best part about this guy is when he says "I will even give a soures you cant claim to being a right wing" you know the opposite is literally impossible since he described The Economist as a socialist magazine.

[Wells]

Hi Vyxn I'm over here.

Oh you deleted your post, never mind then.