• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Dems Deserting Obama [W:73]

First you were all, this is a wet dream of the supposedly "not credible" editor. Making you the first regular administration defender to try and deflect the topic along more agreeable lines to administration defenders. Turns out you did not know what you were talking about when it came to the credibility of Ron Fournier. Much less the regular use of anonymous sources in political reporting. Which is why watching a poster who is clueless about all of that then offer a link to "the differences between news and op/ed" is priceless self p'wnage. But yeah, let's all give ourselves a lobotomy with a rusty tin can lid and then declare that any reporting about dissent and dissatisfaction from within the DNC and administration must not be true, it is all a "wet dream" of a not credible editor and the GOP. Then you never have to address the bad news you have managed to not address up to now. One wonders what you and other administration flak vest will do with yourself as stories and reports of this nature continue to come in as they have for what? The last nine to ten months now? What will the excuse/deflection plan be next month?

:dramallama:


The OP is still just an opinion.
 
:dramallama:


The OP is still just an opinion.
I note your retreat from your own claim, now the "wet dream" from the not credible editor is just an opinion. It was your "opinion" that Ron Fournier is not a so called credible editor, too. :roll: Meanwhile the power team of Bob, Buck and Moot can only offer us their "opinions" on.............. anything but the topic. Imagine that.
 
I note your retreat from your own claim, now the "wet dream" from the not credible editor is just an opinion. It was your "opinion" that Ron Fournier is not a so called credible editor, too. :roll: Meanwhile the power team of Bob, Buck and Moot can only offer us their "opinions" on.............. anything but the topic. Imagine that.


I note that you've made a lot of mindless ad hom attacks on other posters but I have yet to see you address the topic yourself. How typical of you.


Since Ron Fournier's sources can't be verified how do you know he isn't lying, Filthy?
 
I note that you've made a lot of mindless ad hom attacks on other posters but I have yet to see you address the topic yourself. How typical of you.


Since Ron Fournier's sources can't be verified how do you know he isn't lying, Filthy?
You've noticed a bunch of ad hom attacks against other posters? Why you should report them ASAP! Aside from that bromide, it is not surprising that you can't fathom my stance on the subject. Namely that of course some democrats have been and continue to flee a sinking ship. Admittedly it is buried in a sea of misdirection and non stop deflections, but then that is the point of the non stop deflections isn't it? Given that you started out at this is all a "wet dream" being whipped up by a "not credible editor" it is ironic that you now act as if you seek informed opinions that differ from yours. :doh
 
All Those Nameless Democrats Have “Quit” on Obama by Ed Kilgore | Political Animal | The Washington Monthly

In other words, Fournier is saying there are more anonymous sources he could cite, but instead just paraphrases. Clearly, many Democrats in Fournier’s circle thinks Obama is a spent force, a political non-entity, a lame duck, Bush-circa-2008 all over again. That’s undoubtedly why not one of them will go on the record. After all, that nearly-invisible, impotent POTUS might smite them.
 
Ew you better watch out, as Moot will tell you, that is just an opinion! You don't know the difference between news reporting and opinion, do you? How come you don't know the difference, to quote Moot. Come on, I'll raise you one "not credible editor" and a "wet dream" for as many opinion pieces as you can find for Moot and the gang. Now everyone repeat after me, chant it, there is nobody bailing on team Obama, not the press secretary, nobody. There is no dissension in the ranks of the democratic party over the Bergdahl matter, the Va matter or any other matter. Whatsoever. Isn't that rose hue in the air lovely though?:cuckoo:
 
I never said it was a conspiracy theory ...that was your words...
All along I have maintained that this kind of story expressed in many news outlets is GOP P.R. released to the press and gobbled up like bread crumbs thrown to hungry ducks.
As I have said before next week it will probably be some talking point released to the press from the DNC and news stories will swirl around all the wire services and then the news outlets using similar language and key words the DNC chose that week..
Obama's approval / disapproval spread was much higher last December than it is right now and it hasn't changed appreciably over the last eighteen months...Why would all the news outlets suddenly carry all these "souring" stories all at the same time now?
GOP P.R.
RealClearPolitics - Election Other - President Obama Job Approval
There are only so many truly news worthy stories and many, many, many, news outlet hours and columns to fill everyday. There has to be a lot of chaff mixed in with the wheat.
Some of us know how to separate it ... some obviously can't.
Just as some of us are honest about our profile lean and some obviously lie.

I beg to differ on President's Obama's approval ratings, but then I use Gallups which breaks it down with much more information. A synopsis From January 2013 looks like this:

Here are some comparisons of the president’s approval rating from January 2013 to today among certain age groups along with independents and moderates. Figures are from Gallup.

...................2013..Jan...May...Sep......Dec.2014.May…..Today
18-29 year olds.......64%..60%..51%...42%.2014.51%.....49%
30-49 year olds.......52%..50%..44%...44%.2014.44%.....45%
50-64 year olds.......50%..47%..44%...41%.2014.45%.....43%
65 plus..................44%..42%..38%...38%.2014..38%.....39%
Independents.........47%..45%...38%...35%.2014.38%.....38%
Moderates..............61%..56%...49%...45%.2014.51%.....47%
National average….…53%..49%...45%...40%.2014.44%.....44%

You see a big drop throughout 2013, but beginning this January the president stated climbing back up. It is nowhere near January of 2013, closer or almost even with September 2013 and higher than December 2013.

The December figures are probably a result of the botched ACA rollout, but now that is over and the president has climbed back up to where he was before the botched rollout, none of us knows if he will continue to climb or fall back.

I think what you see as far as Democrats distancing themselves from him is normal election year posturing when a president is mired in the lower 40’s in his approval rating. This happens all the time. There are trying to hang onto their seat.
 
Ew you better watch out, as Moot will tell you, that is just an opinion! You don't know the difference between news reporting and opinion, do you? How come you don't know the difference, to quote Moot. Come on, I'll raise you one "not credible editor" and a "wet dream" for as many opinion pieces as you can find for Moot and the gang. Now everyone repeat after me, chant it, there is nobody bailing on team Obama, not the press secretary, nobody. There is no dissension in the ranks of the democratic party over the Bergdahl matter, the Va matter or any other matter. Whatsoever. Isn't that rose hue in the air lovely though?:cuckoo:

That was the point of my post. Read the link.
 
That was the point of my post. Read the link.
If that was the point of the piece, then it seems like I don't need to. But I'll bookmark it for later anyway.
 
I didn't see any names of democrats in the article. Nary a one. So who are all these demo-rats that are "leaving a sinking ship?" Or do they only exist in the author's wet dreams?

Well, it can't be me, I'm an unknown, but I can't support Obama because he's only permitted two terms as prez. :lol:
 
I think what you see as far as Democrats distancing themselves from him is normal election year posturing when a president is mired in the lower 40’s in his approval rating. This happens all the time. There are trying to hang onto their seat.
Of course this is the case. One thing that happens when you get these whirling dervishes of deflection and misdirection is that so many outliers get tossed in, it becomes impossible to address them all. Hence the appeal of the whirling dervish deflection technique to those who rely upon it as regular means of debate. You hit upon similar thoughts I was having as I read back through the muck. About why some quarters of his own party have grown sour with Obama and his administration. Of course the fact that the word "sour" aptly describes what we have seen occurring is just another lynchpin in the whirling dervish deflection that has been offered so far. Why acknowledge the obvious when you can just illustrate denial ad nauseam? If you do that instead, you don't have to admit or acknowledge a single thing! Yay! I mean the word "sour" proves, somehow, I guess, that this is all just the "wet dream" of a PR plot by the GOP and a "not credible editor" to try and paint the picture things are not anything but rosy! :lamo
 
Of course this is the case. One thing that happens when you get these whirling dervishes of deflection and misdirection is that so many outliers get tossed in, it becomes impossible to address them all. Hence the appeal of the whirling dervish deflection technique to those who rely upon it as regular means of debate. You hit upon similar thoughts I was having as I read back through the muck. About why some quarters of his own party have grown sour with Obama and his administration. Of course the fact that the word "sour" aptly describes what we have seen occurring is just another lynchpin in the whirling dervish deflection that has been offered so far. Why acknowledge the obvious when you can just illustrate denial ad nauseam? If you do that instead, you don't have to admit or acknowledge a single thing! Yay! I mean the word "sour" proves, somehow, I guess, that this is all just the "wet dream" of a PR plot by the GOP and a "not credible editor" to try and paint the picture things are not anything but rosy! :lamo

This is why you have some Dems running away from the president.

The following midterms happened when a president’s approval rating is at 45% or below:
1974 Ford 42% Minus 5 senate Minus 48 House seats
1982 Reagan 43% Plus 1 senate Minus 26 House seats
1994 Clinton 41% Minus 9 senate Minus 54 House seats
2006 Bush II 37% Minus 6 senate Minus 33 House seats
2010 Obama 45% Minus 6 senate Minus 63 House seats

It is very hard to admit when the president is of your party and more Americans than not think he sucks. Every swing poll on RCP has the presidents disapproval rating at 50% or above.

RealClearPolitics - Election Other - President Obama Job Approval

Apparently he is not making enough people happy with what and in the way he is doing things. If you think that is bad, look at his foreign policy approval ratings:

RealClearPolitics - Election Other - President Obama Job Approval

The economy

RealClearPolitics - Election Other - President Obama Job Approval - Economy

If I was a Democrat running for re-election I would be putting quite a lot of distance between Obama and me. Landrieu, Pryor, Hagan has done just that, they were busy with other functions or an very important vote in D.C. when Obama visited their state. But after the election, they will be just as loyal as ever.
 
You've noticed a bunch of ad hom attacks against other posters? Why you should report them ASAP! Aside from that bromide, it is not surprising that you can't fathom my stance on the subject. Namely that of course some democrats have been and continue to flee a sinking ship. Admittedly it is buried in a sea of misdirection and non stop deflections, but then that is the point of the non stop deflections isn't it? Given that you started out at this is all a "wet dream" being whipped up by a "not credible editor" it is ironic that you now act as if you seek informed opinions that differ from yours. :doh


I can't tell if you're overly stimulated or just anal retentive but you seem to be the only one who is getting 'whipped up' into a frenzy and deflecting the topic to discuss a satirical comment made ten pages ago. Everyone else seems to have gotten it the first time and moved on...but you're still obsessing over it. Whichever it is, it doesn't look very healthy or intelligent...in fact it looks downright creepy. Ewww, is right.
 
I can't tell if you're overly stimulated or just anal retentive but you seem to be the only one who is getting 'whipped up' into a frenzy and deflecting the topic to discuss a satirical comment made ten pages ago. Everyone else seems to have gotten it the first time and moved on...but you're still obsessing over it. Whichever it is, it doesn't look very healthy or intelligent...in fact it looks downright creepy. Ewww, is right.
This kind of ad hom personal attack, which contradicts your ad hom personal attack complaints in your last post? And ignores the in thread warning in #73 that followed your comments in post#72? Well I know how to handle that, unlike you. Now where you got the idea that I'm all 'whipped up' is anyone's guess. Normally one would expect some ALL CAPS language to indicate anger, frenzy or whatever other deflections you want to post. But not so much with you, despite the lack of any of that here you are trying it. In fact, despite the fact you were the first to start throwing out deflections like "wet dream" and "not credible editor"? Now you ham-fistedly want to claim it is me who is doing this? Well not only is that funny but almost cute in its impotence. :roll:

By the way Moot, this is the second time you have tried to run that 'you don't look healthy or intelligent, you're creeping on me' crap with me. You must have forgotten not only that you reached for this 'tool' of yours with me before, but how that turned out last time you tried it. Which is A-OK with me. :mrgreen:
 
Last edited:
If I was a Democrat running for re-election I would be putting quite a lot of distance between Obama and me. Landrieu, Pryor, Hagan has done just that, they were busy with other functions or an very important vote in D.C. when Obama visited their state. But after the election, they will be just as loyal as ever.
Following a election all the lap dogs return to their masters!

Sorry I was tardy in replying to this. To quote another poster, I was busy separating the wheat from the chaff. Of course I did offer to explore this obvious territory way back in post #44. The obvious problem is that actually doing so? Would result in inadvertent admissions to certain real world occurrences that do not fit the "wet dream" of a conspiracy theory the power team ahem, "subscribes" to. :)
 
Following a election all the lap dogs return to their masters!

Sorry I was tardy in replying to this. To quote another poster, I was busy separating the wheat from the chaff. Of course I did offer to explore this obvious territory way back in post #44. The obvious problem is that actually doing so? Would result in inadvertent admissions to certain real world occurrences that do not fit the "wet dream" of a conspiracy theory the power team ahem, "subscribes" to. :)

Got you, I roam about, at the computer for a time and then not. No need to apologize for being tardy, sometimes I don't answer someone until the next morning.
 
Got you, I roam about, at the computer for a time and then not. No need to apologize for being tardy, sometimes I don't answer someone until the next morning.
Tardy was a poor choice of words, I meant sorry for not posting an answer to your post before I did my wheat/chaff thingy. Truly as the young ones say, my bad. Low hanging fruit and all that.;)
 
That's the beauty of politics, they hug and embrace in front of the camera until one screw up then the freeze is on. I love it, this is the morality in Washington. I'm sorry, I misspoke, there is no morality in Washington.
 
The left has never shied away from criticizing the president, despite how often the right likes to tell us that he's our messiah or that we worship him. Criticizing him does not, however, mean that we hate him, or are suddenly going to embrace right wing policies. They're insane and terrible ideas. But regardless of this, Obama has won both of his elections already.
 
Back
Top Bottom