ADVERTISEMENT

Obama Approval Rating 53-44

http://www.fool.com/investing/gener...t-obama-spent-684-million-to-get-elected.aspx

And that was the tip of the iceberg. I have seen/read/heard other sources state that Obama raised the most money from the different categories of financial firms for the first decade of the new century even though he was only in DC for lest than half of it.

I believe Sanders when he says his donations are from citizens and not firms. Obama, yes, his claim on that was a bit of a fib. And of course he was not going to beat Romney in that Department. But yes, the original claim/or what was implied by I lbelieve Kesweci has merit.
I'm still looking for the healthcare part. Or is your claim that since he led in industry he must have led in all industries?? Pretty sure none of the top groups listed in 08 had jack squat to do with healthcare and insurance. Your own article certainly doesn't list it as a major contributor. Wanna try again?
 
lol you want to re-write that last sentence in English? And you think the way to lamely attack me is to attack all JAG attorneys, folks who work hard in service to their country? lol ok, that's one way to go.

No need to rewrite anything. 99% of people understand what was said. Hey man, did not attack you. Just stated a fact.
 
I'm still looking for the healthcare part. Or is your claim that since he led in industry he must have led in all industries?? Pretty sure none of the top groups listed in 08 had jack squat to do with healthcare and insurance. Your own article certainly doesn't list it as a major contributor. Wanna try again?

Yeah it is only listed right in the chart. Here is another one. LOL, this is considered common knowledge. Like I said, I l believe Bernie in his claims about his financial donations. Obama, well not so much.

http://www.commondreams.org/news/20...-20-million-healthcare-industry-2008-campaign
 
No need to rewrite anything. 99% of people understand what was said. Hey man, did not attack you. Just stated a fact.
lol no, you didn't.

A. MOST accused go with a military attorney. A civilian attorney being retained is much less than 1 in 5, closer to 1 in 10.
B. The acquittal rate for contested cases, particularly sex assault cases is almost 50%
C. I spent two years training 100s of Army defense counsel, so I know the stats, and I know the people.

So no, you didn't state any facts. You attempted to come at me, and used a lot of really good people to do it. Come at me all you want. If you want to make some crack about your perception of my abilities, feel free, I'll just laugh it off. Keep it there Sparky.
 
Yeah it is only listed right in the chart. Here is another one. LOL, this is considered common knowledge. Like I said, I l believe Bernie in his claims about his financial donations. Obama, well not so much.

http://www.commondreams.org/news/20...-20-million-healthcare-industry-2008-campaign
lol you aren't very good at this:

1. Health care professionals are not the health care industry or insurance companies. They are nurses, doctors, hell nurse's aides. Almost 12 of that 20 million was from them. The ACA has nothing to do with them, they aren't making more money because of it. Heck, many of them oppose it in one way or another.
2. "Health insurance industry contributions, however, are not included within the Center's current health sector totals. Rather, contributions from the
health insurance industry are contained within the site's finance and insurance sector. Seeking a more complete total, the Center culled health and accident insurance donations from this sector (for which Obama received $712,317)" So your own link shows that for Health care insurance, Obama got, wait for it, less than 1 million dollars.\
3. Even if you tried to make the argument that every dollar received from a nurse, doctor, nurse's aide, or ANY individual remotely tied to the healthcare industry counted as "health care insurance" which is exactly what you are trying to do obviously...that total of 20 million would represent approximately 2.5 percent of his funding.
4. If you wanted to list out relative importance, the entire healthcare industry was 6th on his list of donors...it was FIFTH on the list of McCain's donors.

But I'm supposed to believe that a sector that:

A. Resulted in 2.5 percent of his total fundraising
B. Was lower on his list than McCain's
C. Was over 50% doctors and nurses
D. Was less than a million dollars from the actual folks the ACA is supposed to be for (insurance companies)

means that Obama did it for the health insurance companies??

Oh, and then when you see that his fundraising from the entire healthcare sector actually went down in 2012, I'm supposed to continue to believe it?

Yeah...sure.

Yes, we should always believe what St. Bernie says about Wall Street. I'm mean he's totally reasonable about it. No exaggerations at all.
 
The nation is pissed at its elected officials.

It's as if the elite in this country and the world all want the same thing ultimately - more money and power for themselves, and to hell with the "little people" and "rabble-rousers" who don't drink their Kool-Aid. They want control, and they will do everything in their power to destroy this country and the personal freedoms we often take for granted.

Agree with you 100% . Both parties are so corrupted at this point that the only way for the country to take back the DC political power is to create a 3rd party - How about the AMERICAN party ?

I am personally DONE with OLD politics ! (RNC, DNC, Bushes, Clintons, etc..) If you are an encumbent, you better show me something significant that you've done for the American people or I do my best to vote your %ss out !

As crazy as it sounds, that leaves me with only 2 choices for true change - Bernie or Trump. I will also NOT be surprised if both run Independently come Nov. (RNC will do their best to take the nomination from Trump & the DNC/media is doing the same to Bernie by stressing the un-elected super delegates when there is only about 250 voted delegates between them)

It's going to be 2 crazy conventions, with lots of drama afterwards.
 
Agree with you 100% . Both parties are so corrupted at this point that the only way for the country to take back the DC political power is to create a 3rd party - How about the AMERICAN party ?

I am personally DONE with OLD politics ! (RNC, DNC, Bushes, Clintons, etc..) If you are an encumbent, you better show me something significant that you've done for the American people or I do my best to vote your %ss out !

As crazy as it sounds, that leaves me with only 2 choices for true change - Bernie or Trump. I will also NOT be surprised if both run Independently come Nov. (RNC will do their best to take the nomination from Trump & the DNC/media is doing the same to Bernie by stressing the un-elected super delegates when there is only about 250 voted delegates between them)

It's going to be 2 crazy conventions, with lots of drama afterwards.
1. Last I checked, Bernie was actively campaigning for the SDs to come to him. So not sure how you can actively campaign for a group to side with you, then complain when folks list them as they currently stand.
2. Ignoring the SDs, Clinton is ahead by approximately 210 pledged delegates. She will almost certainly win NY and MD. From this point on, BS has to win EVERY election by approximately 58 percent just to catch up to Clinton in pledged delegates. So things like winning WY may create a narrative, but given that they came out of it tied in pledged delegates because BS didn't win by enough, means as far as pledged delegates go, he actually lost ground to HRC. Now, imagine what losing MD and NY do to that?

BL: He's losing because he's losing, because his appeal is limited to open primaries and caucuses and independents vice closed elections and Democrats. Because he's a one-issue candidate.

Having said that, while I think his eventual support for HRC will be very begrudgingly given, there's no way he runs third party. He will support HRC over Trump or Cruz or anyone else.

Trump on the other hand, oh yeah he's going to be pissed if he's passed over with the plurality of the delegates. He has zero reason to play nice.

The Dem convention won't be normal, BS will make some noise, but it won't be crazy. Hillary will win the pledged delegate total by more than Obama did in 08. The supers will line up behind her, like they lined up behind him, and she will win on the first ballot.
 
They werent the sole contributes to his campaign, which is how he got elected, and I don't know, and you don't know, how beholding he felt to those who contributed, but man o man did health insurers get a gift.

http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/sectors.php?sector=H
There weren't even top five contributors. The health insurance industry, thanks to Purdue97's research, gave less than 1 million dollars to his campaign. In fact, given it was around 750 thousand, and he raised around 750 million, that makes it one tenth of one percent of his contributions.

So you think he was "beholden" to them for that?

Heck, if you want to make an argument that he did a favor for Wall Street with the bank bailout, you'd at least have numerically a MUCH stronger argument for that position.
 
I think his eventual support for HRC will be very begrudgingly given, there's no way he runs third party. .

You are probably right Qaz, but I hope you aren't- otherwise that only leaves me with Trump. I refuse to vote for big money/big politic snakes who sell us out once they are in office.

On the other hand, some of Hillary comments (He's not even a Democrat !, etc.. ) still give me hope
 
There weren't even top five contributors. The health insurance industry, thanks to Purdue97's research, gave less than 1 million dollars to his campaign. In fact, given it was around 750 thousand, and he raised around 750 million, that makes it one tenth of one percent of his contributions.

So you think he was "beholden" to them for that?

Heck, if you want to make an argument that he did a favor for Wall Street with the bank bailout, you'd at least have numerically a MUCH stronger argument for that position.
Okay, have it your way, Obams wasn't influenced by special interest and could have easily gotten something better but didn't, K. IMHO Obama is just an idiot then for having handed Americans health care to an industry that does everything in it's power to maximize premiums while minimizing claims. I was at least giving him some credit for politics as it's currently played.
 
Okay, have it your way, Obams wasn't influenced by special interest and could have easily gotten something better but didn't, K. IMHO Obama is just an idiot then for having handed Americans health care to an industry that does everything in it's power to maximize premiums while minimizing claims. I was at least giving him some credit for politics as it's currently played.
1. I didn't say Obama was never influenced by any special interest. I said he wasn't influenced by THIS special interest. I even allowed that an argument could be made he was influenced by special interest on the bank bailout...or heck, the auto bailout too.

2. I didn't say he could have "easily gotten something better" I literally said it would have been hard but he could have done. I mean seriously I don't mind debating what I said, but when you make it out to be the exact opposite this is going to get real old, real fast.

3. Obama was TOO prone to compromise early on IMO. He SHOULD have rammed through a public option. He SHOULDNT have tried to adopt a republican/conservative idea with the idea that surely the republicans wont object to me literally taking their own idea mindset.
 
You are probably right Qaz, but I hope you aren't- otherwise that only leaves me with Trump. I refuse to vote for big money/big politic snakes who sell us out once they are in office.

On the other hand, some of Hillary comments (He's not even a Democrat !, etc.. ) still give me hope
Well, he's not a Democrat. He's said himself the only reason he became one was because it was the only viable path to the Presidency for him. He's still listed in paperwork for his 2018 senate run as an independent. He'll drop the D not too long after the election is over, if not before.
 
1. I didn't say Obama was never influenced by any special interest. I said he wasn't influenced by THIS special interest. I even allowed that an argument could be made he was influenced by special interest on the bank bailout...or heck, the auto bailout too.

2. I didn't say he could have "easily gotten something better" I literally said it would have been hard but he could have done. I mean seriously I don't mind debating what I said, but when you make it out to be the exact opposite this is going to get real old, real fast.

3. Obama was TOO prone to compromise early on IMO. He SHOULD have rammed through a public option. He SHOULDNT have tried to adopt a republican/conservative idea with the idea that surely the republicans wont object to me literally taking their own idea mindset.
1) IMO, saying he wasn't influenced by insurers, makes him look clueless.

2) easy/hard what's the differance if you feel he could have gotten it done? The fact is he didn't. Trust me, I wasn't debating, particularly unprovable opinion re what Obama could have done, I was just throwing my opinion out there
I get you have a differant opinion, it 4pm on a Sunday, my work week ended 3 hrs ago and will start back up in 13hrs, I'm more concerned right now with perfecting my cocktails, not changing your opinion.

3) Fair enough.
 
They absolutely were willing.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/06/28/politics/supreme-court-health-timeline/index.html

April 21, 2009 -- Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus and Ranking Member Chuck Grassley hold the first of three roundtables of health policy and industry experts to discuss the development of health care legislation. (this was a bi-partisan committee made up of three Democrats and three Republicans that met 31 times for a period of over 60 hours to develop what would ultimately become the Affordable Care Act.)

July 15, 2009 -- The Senate's Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee passes The Affordable Health Choices Act. The bipartisan bill includes more than 160 Republican amendments accepted during the month-long mark-up, one of the longest in congressional history.

February 25, 2010 -- Obama holds a televised heath care summit with leaders from both parties to explain the health care bill.

http://thinkprogress.org/health/201...admission-republicans-helped-write-obamacare/

The willingness to negotiate wasn't just in 09 or even while he was facing re-election:

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/...ng-republicans-democrats-098037#ixzz45Rg4Jixc
Obama says he’s willing to talk about his health care law, after the crisis is over. “If you disagree with certain aspects of it, tell us what you disagree with, and let’s work on it,” Obama said at a press conference Tuesday afternoon.

So, you were saying?
There is a difference between "explain the bill" and "work together on it". But have a good thread. Clearly it's out of hand...
 
There is a difference between "explain the bill" and "work together on it". But have a good thread. Clearly it's out of hand...
so a bipartisan committee that met 31 times, and the fact that there were 160 Republican amendments accepted wasn't working together, it was just explaining?

Have I got that right?
 
1) IMO, saying he wasn't influenced by insurers, makes him look clueless.

2) easy/hard what's the differance if you feel he could have gotten it done? The fact is he didn't. Trust me, I wasn't debating, particularly unprovable opinion re what Obama could have done, I was just throwing my opinion out there
I get you have a differant opinion, it 4pm on a Sunday, my work week ended 3 hrs ago and will start back up in 13hrs, I'm more concerned right now with perfecting my cocktails, not changing your opinion.

3) Fair enough.

How does saying he wasn't influenced by insurers make him look clueless? Other than you don't like the ACA? The problem was he wanted something done. He THOUGHT that by taking a conservative plan as a starting point, there was no way the republicans wouldn't work with him on it. Obviously, that part was "clueless."
 
1. Last I checked, Bernie was actively campaigning for the SDs to come to him. So not sure how you can actively campaign for a group to side with you, then complain when folks list them as they currently stand.
2. Ignoring the SDs, Clinton is ahead by approximately 210 pledged delegates. She will almost certainly win NY and MD. From this point on, BS has to win EVERY election by approximately 58 percent just to catch up to Clinton in pledged delegates. So things like winning WY may create a narrative, but given that they came out of it tied in pledged delegates because BS didn't win by enough, means as far as pledged delegates go, he actually lost ground to HRC. Now, imagine what losing MD and NY do to that?

BL: He's losing because he's losing, because his appeal is limited to open primaries and caucuses and independents vice closed elections and Democrats. Because he's a one-issue candidate.

Having said that, while I think his eventual support for HRC will be very begrudgingly given, there's no way he runs third party. He will support HRC over Trump or Cruz or anyone else.

Trump on the other hand, oh yeah he's going to be pissed if he's passed over with the plurality of the delegates. He has zero reason to play nice.

The Dem convention won't be normal, BS will make some noise, but it won't be crazy. Hillary will win the pledged delegate total by more than Obama did in 08. The supers will line up behind her, like they lined up behind him, and she will win on the first ballot.
Sanders has won 7 of the last 8 contests. If it weren't for the Democrats rigged system (using Superdelegates to allow the establishment to put their thumb on the scales and effectively nullify the votes of the common folk), Hillary would absolutely be in a brawl for the nomination. The energy is with Sanders. Many of the Obama block are disenchanted with the Clintocracy and will sit out this election cycle if Clinton does win the nomination.

Hillary is a lying POS. Every day more and more details come out about her classified email handling, and the Benghazi stuff doesn't seem to want to die either. She is in a very precarious position right now, and it doesn't look to get better anytime soon.
 
so a bipartisan committee that met 31 times, and the fact that there were 160 Republican amendments accepted wasn't working together, it was just explaining?

Have I got that right?
Not one Republican voted for Obamacare. It was ramrodded down the throats of the nation with entirely one party supporting it. It is the largest entitlement program to come around since Social Security (FDR) and the biggest governmental change since LBJ's horrendous "War on Poverty".
 
How does saying he wasn't influenced by insurers make him look clueless? Other than you don't like the ACA? The problem was he wanted something done. He THOUGHT that by taking a conservative plan as a starting point, there was no way the republicans wouldn't work with him on it. Obviously, that part was "clueless."
I don't know, you bolded one, and maybe that was the biggest problem, and goes back to my original post. He THOUGHT something would work. Again, my opinion, it was too early into his Presidency to have done anything of this magnitude based on what he THOUGHT might work. Get some time in the job and maybe he has a better understanding, hell maybe go so far as he could have KNOWN, how to get close to exactly what he wanted, whatever that may have been.
 
Not one Republican voted for Obamacare. It was ramrodded down the throats of the nation with entirely one party supporting it. It is the largest entitlement program to come around since Social Security (FDR) and the biggest governmental change since LBJ's horrendous "War on Poverty".
As much as I disagree with qaz on ACA, these over the top statemenus make no sense unless you qualify who benefits from this so called "entitlement program." If you me corporate entitlement program for insurers, I agree, but if you're trying to imply ACA is some social welfare program, come on. And that Republicans didn't vote for it is politics, not an indication they are dissatisfied, they got what they wanted, Heath care basically privatized from the jump. All there huffing and puffing about overturning it was theater, nothing more.
 
As much as I disagree with qaz on ACA, these over the top statemenus make no sense unless you qualify who benefits from this so called "entitlement program." If you me corporate entitlement program for insurers, I agree, but if you're trying to imply ACA is some social welfare program, come on. And that Republicans didn't vote for it is politics, not an indication they are dissatisfied, they got what they wanted, Heath care basically privatized from the jump. All there huffing and puffing about overturning it was theater, nothing more.
No. The Republicans did not want Obamacare. Nancy Pelosi famously said "But we have to pass the bill so you can find out what is in it..." Congress didn't even have time to review the 11,000 pages of this monstrosity of an act. It was ramrodded down the throats of the American people and the majority of Congress before they even had time to review it. No major piece of legislation should be approved in this manner, especially one for which the consequences are so important.

How many Americans technically still don't have insurance at this point, 5+ years after ACA was passed? Obama blew up the whole system so that 15 million people (about 4% of the population) would get coverage. People like me, who had excellent coverage, had to change to high deductible plans because our old coverage was considered "too good" (Cadillac Plans). My employer-based coverage is worse than before and costs me more out-of-pocket while still having a higher deductible.
 
No. The Republicans did not want Obamacare. Nancy Pelosi famously said "But we have to pass the bill so you can find out what is in it..." Congress didn't even have time to review the 11,000 pages of this monstrosity of an act. It was ramrodded down the throats of the American people and the majority of Congress before they even had time to review it. No major piece of legislation should be approved in this manner, especially one for which the consequences are so important.

How many Americans technically still don't have insurance at this point, 5+ years after ACA was passed? Obama blew up the whole system so that 15 million people (about 4% of the population) would get coverage. People like me, who had excellent coverage, had to change to high deductible plans because our old coverage was considered "too good" (Cadillac Plans). My employer-based coverage is worse than before and costs me more out-of-pocket while still having a higher deductible.
See, this is the problem with politics today, propaganda is viewed as reality.

I'm not going to change your opinion, but in the late 90's i was in conversation after conversation about rising health insurance costs for employees. I was hired to run a company while transitioned to union and choice the owner made primary due to rising health care costs. Now I get there is a political view that health care was fine before 2008 and Obama f'ed it up, but for my perspective, that's just not true.

Again, my opinion, Republicans got exactly what they wanted, and could never have gotten on their own, with ACA. They knew they couldn't get it because it would be painful, so now they are in the wonderful position of having their cake while saying they didn't want it, let's see how fast they repeal it if they win the up coming elections. I have feeling if that were to happen, they still wouldn't repeat it, but now we would be arguing over a hypothetical.

As to your personal health care, I don't know your company but I have a strong feeling they have no desire to subsidies your health insurance at the expense of their profits, but they now have a nice out spinning the issue as shareholders want nothing more than to pay part of you and your families health insurance but that damnable Obama f'ed it up!
 
Sanders has won 7 of the last 8 contests. If it weren't for the Democrats rigged system (using Superdelegates to allow the establishment to put their thumb on the scales and effectively nullify the votes of the common folk), Hillary would absolutely be in a brawl for the nomination. The energy is with Sanders. Many of the Obama block are disenchanted with the Clintocracy and will sit out this election cycle if Clinton does win the nomination.

Hillary is a lying POS. Every day more and more details come out about her classified email handling, and the Benghazi stuff doesn't seem to want to die either. She is in a very precarious position right now, and it doesn't look to get better anytime soon.
No. Hillary won five in a row in Super Tuesday. There is little such thing as momentum. She's about to win a string here again. The "Obama block" is voting for Hillary. The youth and the white vote (the latter was actually the "Hillary Block" in 08) are voting for Sanders. She has 2.4 million more votes, and 200+ more pledged delegates which is larger than ANY lead Obama had in 08.

So yeah, I'm not too worried about "energy."
 
lol you aren't very good at this:

1. Health care professionals are not the health care industry or insurance companies. They are nurses, doctors, hell nurse's aides. Almost 12 of that 20 million was from them. The ACA has nothing to do with them, they aren't making more money because of it. Heck, many of them oppose it in one way or another.
2. "Health insurance industry contributions, however, are not included within the Center's current health sector totals. Rather, contributions from the
health insurance industry are contained within the site's finance and insurance sector. Seeking a more complete total, the Center culled health and accident insurance donations from this sector (for which Obama received $712,317)" So your own link shows that for Health care insurance, Obama got, wait for it, less than 1 million dollars.\
3. Even if you tried to make the argument that every dollar received from a nurse, doctor, nurse's aide, or ANY individual remotely tied to the healthcare industry counted as "health care insurance" which is exactly what you are trying to do obviously...that total of 20 million would represent approximately 2.5 percent of his funding.
4. If you wanted to list out relative importance, the entire healthcare industry was 6th on his list of donors...it was FIFTH on the list of McCain's donors.

But I'm supposed to believe that a sector that:

A. Resulted in 2.5 percent of his total fundraising
B. Was lower on his list than McCain's
C. Was over 50% doctors and nurses
D. Was less than a million dollars from the actual folks the ACA is supposed to be for (insurance companies)

means that Obama did it for the health insurance companies??

Oh, and then when you see that his fundraising from the entire healthcare sector actually went down in 2012, I'm supposed to continue to believe it?

Yeah...sure.

Yes, we should always believe what St. Bernie says about Wall Street. I'm mean he's totally reasonable about it. No exaggerations at all.

Pretty sure it mentioned election in 2008. Anyway, supplied two links that showed Obama clearly out raised McCain by a lot of money across health care, finance, insurance.

You did a good job breaking it down. Still does not make the original assertion the least bit dubious. And I mentioned in an above post that I was not going to claim Obama was close to Romney in these areas.
 
Pretty sure it mentioned election in 2008. Anyway, supplied two links that showed Obama clearly out raised McCain by a lot of money across health care, finance, insurance.

You did a good job breaking it down. Still does not make the original assertion the least bit dubious. And I mentioned in an above post that I was not going to claim Obama was close to Romney in these areas.
Obama out raised McCain in ALL areas by a lot of money. And, again, finance is not health insurance...regular insurance is not health insurance...doctors and nurses are not health insurance. When it came to ACTUAL health insurance companies, it was less than 1/10th of 1 percent of his overall fundraising.
 
There were quite a few D legislators who would not have voted for a plan that contained a public option or any kind of serious check on the health insurance industry. Health insurance companies were allowed to heavily influence the bill because the administration was afraid of them running a PR campaign that would derail any kind of reform. Also likely because the most knowledgable experts on health care insurance work in the industry and the corporate and legislative world have been entangled practicly forever. Obama's campaign contributions don't even rank as a contributing factor in the prosscess.
The ACC is flawed in many ways, but the opposition has mostly vacated their credibility through blatent obstruction and denial of reality.
 
I am indifferent to President Obama ,but I dislike the Todd Young ad that asks if you are counting down the days until Obama leaves office.It just shows a nasty attitude toward the President and toward his office that is seen too often in politics nowadays.I thought Young was running for the Senate,not President.
How many people on this board are counting down the days until Morgan Burkes retirement? Waiting for change after years of missed expectations? There is nothing wrong with that. Nasty attitude? Damned right! When someone in a position fails the people they are accountable to they should hear about it.
 
M
How many people on this board are counting down the days until Morgan Burkes retirement? Waiting for change after years of missed expectations? There is nothing wrong with that. Nasty attitude? Damned right! When someone in a position fails the people they are accountable to they should hear about it.
Morgan Burkes job isn't as important as Barack Obamas.My point is that politics has become so toxic in this country that I don't think any President will get much respect anymore .That's sad...
 
M

Morgan Burkes job isn't as important as Barack Obamas.My point is that politics has become so toxic in this country that I don't think any President will get much respect anymore .That's sad...

Respect is earned, not given
 
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT