How do I know the Obama campaign is in trouble?

[Don]

By looking at CTB's posts: He's posting a proliferant amount of articles talking about Romney ... and none of which are actually addressing the Obama problems of the economy, foreign policy, etc.

 

[preachinjesus]

One would have thought the Republican challengers would have mounted a huge media blitz based on his convention speech which was basically..."Well I haven't, but if re-elected I can..."

I don't the President's re-election campaign is in nearly as much trouble as his opponent's campaign.

They both should feel lucky that a third-party challenger didn't toss their hat in the ring. This might have been a year when that person won.

 

[InTheLight]

One would have thought the Republican challengers would have mounted a huge media blitz based on his convention speech which was basically..."Well I haven't, but if re-elected I can..."

 

[OldRegular]

By looking at CTB's posts: He's posting a proliferant amount of articles talking about Romney ... and none of which are actually addressing the Obama problems of the economy, foreign policy, etc.

I am suspicious that Obama's continued portrayal of the so-called movie trailer, posted on the internet on july 1 as the cause and justification of the turmoil in islamic countries, is for political purposes!

 

[poncho]

One would have thought the Republican challengers would have mounted a huge media blitz based on his convention speech which was basically..."Well I haven't, but if re-elected I can..."

I don't the President's re-election campaign is in nearly as much trouble as his opponent's campaign.

They both should feel lucky that a third-party challenger didn't toss their hat in the ring. This might have been a year when that person won.

Lucky huh? A third party challenger is having to sue the democrats and republicans just to try to get a chance to appear in the debates.

It seems it really isn't a matter of luck at all.

The Libertarian candidate for president – who will be on all 50 states’ ballots this election, and who is currently polling at around 5% of the vote – Johnson (and his vice presidential running mate, retired judge Jim Gray) have filed an antitrust lawsuit against the PDC for excluding them from the debates:

The Gov. Gary Johnson/Judge Jim Gray Campaign has filed an antitrust lawsuit against the Democrats, Republicans, & the Commission on Presidential Debates for antitrust and anticompetitive acts. The voters deserve competition!
​

The lawsuit comes after the PDC’s failure to respond to the following letter from Johnson last month:


CONTINUE . . .


It's a matter of loyalty to the corrupt two party system.

I am suspicious that Obama's continued portrayal of the so-called movie trailer, posted on the internet on july 1 as the cause and justification of the turmoil in islamic countries, is for political purposes!

Like I've said in the past OR when the government and media are using the very same words to describe an event we can be sure that they are just covering their fannies. It is for political purposes. Both factions of the government want to wage war on Iran but they can't do that unless they have a pretext. By stirring up the muslims to riot and kill people they're hoping they'll get their pretext.

No matter how many innocent people have to die for it. Waging war is more important to them all than protecting their own people. Who can blame them really, there's much more money and power to be gained from war than peace, for the global elite anyways. It's the little people who always suffer and pay the costs while the elite skip and laugh all the way to the bank.

 

[Arbo]

By looking at CTB's posts: He's posting a proliferant amount of articles talking about Romney ... and none of which are actually addressing the Obama problems of the economy, foreign policy, etc.

There is that smell of desperation. Every post of his is a negative toward Romney, yet I recall nothing in favor of Obama.

 

[poncho]

Hey I just got a great idea! Well it isn't mine at all but it might help to get ole Crabby to shut up about Romney.

We could all put him on our ignore list then attack him whenever he posts a negative thread about Romney. That way we could say anything about him we like without ever having to read any of his replies!

Neat huh?

I'm not one to claim credit for another's idea and I'm not one to name names so I'll just say the true author of this idea deserves nothing less than full credit. :laugh: :wavey:

 

[Crabtownboy]

Hey I just got a great idea! Well it isn't mine at all but it might help to get ole Crabby to shut up about Romney.

We could all put him on our ignore list then attack him whenever he posts a negative thread about Romney. That way we could say anything about him we like without ever having to read any of his replies!

There are some I wish would put me on their ignore list. Then perhaps there would be some rational discussion. It would be a nice change.

On the OP, I do not need to post about Obama. There are others who do that well. Does that mean their posts show that Romney is in trouble?

 

[Don]

There are some I wish would put me on their ignore list. Then perhaps there would be some rational discussion. It would be a nice change.

On the OP, I do not need to post about Obama. There are others who do that well. Does that mean their posts show that Romney is in trouble?

Well, let's see: Your last few posts about Romney have been about his tax returns; Romney attending a fundraiser; Romney's old business restructuring other businesses; Romney asking for others' tax returns; and the crapola about Romney caught on tape.

ON the other hand, the posts about Obama have been about Obama telling Univision that he can't change Washington; the Obama administration putting out a potential policy of requiring the selling of ethanol; the Obama administration's putting out of policy of what constitutes a "terrorist"; the fact that there's less than 100 days for Obama to lead the Congress to do something about the upcoming tax hikes; and one about how there are more Americans on food stamps under Obama than in our history.

So you tell me: Which one has more substance to it?

 

[Crabtownboy]

Well, let's see: Your last few posts about Romney have been about his tax returns; Romney attending a fundraiser; Romney's old business restructuring other businesses; Romney asking for others' tax returns; and the crapola about Romney caught on tape.

ON the other hand, the posts about Obama have been about Obama telling Univision that he can't change Washington; the Obama administration putting out a potential policy of requiring the selling of ethanol; the Obama administration's putting out of policy of what constitutes a "terrorist"; the fact that there's less than 100 days for Obama to lead the Congress to do something about the upcoming tax hikes; and one about how there are more Americans on food stamps under Obama than in our history.

So you tell me: Which one has more substance to it?

It is obvious, there is more depth to Obama than to Romney. Romney will not speak to the issues, but continually gets himself in trouble with fluff. I expect if he did speak specifics to issues he would be in even more trouble.

 

[HankD]

It is obvious, there is more depth to Obama than to Romney. Romney will not speak to the issues, but continually gets himself in trouble with fluff. I expect if he did speak specifics to issues he would be in even more trouble.

Actually CBT, both candidates have resorted to negative personal assessments of each other because when there is any substance in their speeches, it is shredded, sliced and diced and put under the "what-if" microscope.

As an example both parties have accused the other of wanting to dismantle Medicare with talk of wanting to "throw Grandma over the cliff" or leaving senior citizens to be subject to a "death panel".

To be honest, I am part of the rhetoric problem.
In reality, neither side really wants that to happen.

Another reality however is that seniors depending upon SSA and Medicare will indeed suffer unless something is done to pay down the national debt to avoid an economic crash.

Both sides are depending upon unproven premises as November approaches.

Obama: It would have been far worse if I hadn't become president.
Give me another chance.

Romney: I can fix it. Give me a chance.

HankD

 

[Salty]

It is obvious, there is more depth to Obama than to Romney. Romney will not speak to the issues, but continually gets himself in trouble with fluff. I expect if he did speak specifics to issues he would be in even more trouble.

I would read the website to see his stand on issues

 

[InTheLight]

Hey I just got a great idea! Well it isn't mine at all but it might help to get ole Crabby to shut up about Romney.

We could all put him on our ignore list then attack him whenever he posts a negative thread about Romney. That way we could say anything about him we like without ever having to read any of his replies!

Neat huh?

I'm not one to claim credit for another's idea and I'm not one to name names so I'll just say the true author of this idea deserves nothing less than full credit. :laugh: :wavey:

I'm flattered.

I've figured out that I don't need to use the ignore function to avoid reading your posts. Judging by the number of responses to your posts, I'm sure the rest of BB has figured it out as well.