• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Obama's Enemies List

Yes, he is calling out his opponent's contributors. So is Romney not allowed to call out anyone close to Obama? Is that the rulebook we play by? We are not allowed to look at people who either contribute major amount of money to a candidate or might have some sort of specific influence towards a candidate? Is this not part of the process now?

Obama isn't talking about them in his White House address, it is a part of his campaign.

Here is a challenge for you...

Show me a presidential campaign in the past 50 years where a candidate was never vetted for close acquaintances or key financial contributors. This 'show me' stuff works both ways.

This is a non issue. To be honest I would rather we err on the side of OVER VETTING than under vetting (I think McCain would probably agree with this as well...). Let em dig up the dirt on each other. If it sticks it sticks, if it doesn't than it looks bad on the digger. Either way we learn more about our candidates.

OUTRAGE!
 
Wrangor PWNing DeacMan like a red-headed stepchild.
 
RChildress107 said:
Not really. He did PWN the hell out of the strawman he set up though. Deacman acknowledged that every campaign ever has found one or two "less than reputable" donors to the opposition and played those relationships up as much as possible. That's campaigning 101.

This list claims quite a few of Romney's donors are "less than reputable" and have been on the "wrong side of the law". It's implying that they are criminals and have earned the money they are donating in an illegal way. It then lists eight donors. Unless I'm mistaken none of them have criminal records or have been shown to make their money in an illegal way.

If you are going to call a donor out for being a criminal you should make sure they are actually criminals. Especially if you are someone capable or charging them with a crime and bringing them to justice.

And Deacman's not saying Romney can't or shouldn't do the same thing. He's just asking if this specific type of smear campaign has ever been used by a presidential candidate before.

It probably has but I don't know.
Click to expand...

Pretty much says it all. Still waiting on the list btw.
 
I think a lot of people on here could "win" a debate over economics with Obama if it was around 10 minutes long. I'm also okay with that. I think that the president's main responsibility is putting together a cabinet and administration of knowledgeable people in a variety of areas. It's unreasonable for one person to be an expert in every field that is required of the president. If there is anyone like this out there in politics I would be very impressed.
 
The Republicans are setting themselves up for failure by attacking Obama over complete and utter nonsense. The "enemies list," Obama's "war on women" (e.g. accepting campaign contributions from Bill Maher, who's "war on women" was calling Sarah Palin a cunt), Obama spiking the football over bin laden, Obama hanging out with people advocating violence, etc. It's all nonsense. Just attack him on the economy - he has an abysmal record and leadership in that arena. Of course the republicans have their heads so far up their ass as far as the economy goes as well, but they can at least help themselves by not getting their base riled up over nonsense. Guess what? Nobody else is listening or cares.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top