PDA

View Full Version : Do you thing the Obama Scandals will affect the election?



genglandoh
05-02-2012, 03:20 PM
I normally think voters do not hold the sitting Presidentresponsible for scandal that he is not personally involved it, but as the listkeeps growing I think it is starting to affect his re-election chances.
What do you think?
Here is a list of some of the recent scandals I am talking about


GSA Party spending
Secret Service hooker scandal
Fast and Furious gun running program
EPA Crucify them -Scandal
His methods for conduction war on Terrorists less human then Bush.
Shoot them, do not capture them.
Nancy Pelosi denies being told about waterboarding

Donn
05-02-2012, 03:24 PM
Practice proofreading.

Mrleft8
05-02-2012, 03:44 PM
Those damned copy and paste things just don't work like they used to, do they?.....

LeeG
05-02-2012, 04:38 PM
EPA is practicing crucifixion?

Cuyahoga Chuck
05-02-2012, 05:08 PM
Well, there's scandals and there's SCANDALS, booger. A lot of little ones are not equal to one big one.

The only thing that will effect Obama's chances in November is the caliber of his opponent which is about .177 caliber right now, i.e. about the size of a beebee. As I have said so often " you may wish all you want but no pony for you this November". Not likely next time either.

leikec
05-02-2012, 05:10 PM
You'd be better off sitting in a lawn chair alongside a ditch by the shoulder of Highway 2, fishing with a cane pole, and using cookie dough for bait.

Either that or attend bobbys's WBF trolling school for a semester or two. David G might be able to get you a deal on the tuition. :D


Jeff C

John Smith
05-02-2012, 06:22 PM
What, exactly makes any of these Obama's scandals? Was the scandal surrounding Senator John Ensign Bush's scandal?

The non existant WMD's: that was Bush's scandal. If that scandal doesn't impact the re-election of a president, I'm not sure what it would take scandal wise.

genglandoh
05-02-2012, 06:27 PM
You're right... it's just the ones who will look for any conceivable excuse to castigate the sitting President, even when they KNOW that he's not personally responsible.

You need to cast with better bait, genglandoh..... your trolling just ain't cutting it! :)

Not trolling just trying to connect the dots.

In the case of the list I posted I think a few of these scandals will continue to be in the news up until the election.

For example
1. The GSA spending scandal may spread to other government departments painting a picture of a waistfull Government.
2. The Fast and Furious gun running program will continue until the justice department decides to release the documents congress has asked for.
If they do not it will drag out until Nov.
3. If Gas prices stay high or go higher then the EPA Crucify them scandal will be used to explain how the EPA has helped cause high Gas prices.

I do think the others will die down before the election.

Hank Rearden
05-02-2012, 06:30 PM
What, exactly makes any of these Obama's scandals? Was the scandal surrounding Senator John Ensign Bush's scandal?

The non existant WMD's: that was Bush's scandal. If that scandal doesn't impact the re-election of a president, I'm not sure what it would take scandal wise.

The loyal Obaminos will vote for him no matter what. If they found out that their wives had been slippin'around with Obama they would still vote for him as long as he has a D next to his name on the ballot. The so called 'independent' voters will probably be more interested in his poor track record, and they are the ones who put him in office last time.

Canoeyawl
05-02-2012, 06:31 PM
Waistful government..


http://www.omdoubleg.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/Newt-Gingrich-air-force-one-president2a.jpg

leikec
05-02-2012, 06:34 PM
Not trolling just trying to connect the dots.

In the case of the list I posted I think a few of these scandals will continue to be in the news up until the election.

For example
1. The GSA spending scandal may spread to other government departments painting a picture of a waistfull Government.
2. The Fast and Furious gun running program will continue until the justice department decides to release the documents congress has asked for.
If they do not it will drag out until Nov.
3. If Gas prices stay high or go higher then the EPA Crucify them scandal will be used to explain how the EPA has helped cause high Gas prices.

I do think the others will die down before the election.


A "waistful" government sounds scary--that's more than I could stomach. My gut feeling is that your suppositions may resonate in the country's midsection, but President Obama will tighten his belt, suck in his breath, and be reelected.

Jeff C

Shang
05-02-2012, 07:03 PM
genglandoh,
Perhaps this explains things:

http://www.motifake.com/image/demotivational-poster/1108/things-that-amaze-me-gullible-oranges-things-amaze-me-demotivational-posters-1313719572.jpg

johnw
05-02-2012, 07:39 PM
EPA is practicing crucifixion?

'cause hanging was too good for 'em?

Really, if scandals like the non-existent WMDs and making torture the official policy of the U.S. Government didn't keep Bush from being re-elected, and being impeached didn't keep Clinton from being re-elected, scandals apparently don't have the power over voters minds that they are supposed to. I'd say it's the economy, and based on what's happening, it's going to be a close election.

wardd
05-02-2012, 07:44 PM
Not trolling just trying to connect the dots.

In the case of the list I posted I think a few of these scandals will continue to be in the news up until the election.

For example
1. The GSA spending scandal may spread to other government departments painting a picture of a waistfull Government.
2. The Fast and Furious gun running program will continue until the justice department decides to release the documents congress has asked for.
If they do not it will drag out until Nov.
3. If Gas prices stay high or go higher then the EPA Crucify them scandal will be used to explain how the EPA has helped cause high Gas prices.

I do think the others will die down before the election.

at least on fox

wardd
05-02-2012, 07:46 PM
ioiyr

Glen Longino
05-02-2012, 07:48 PM
The loyal Obaminos will vote for him no matter what. If they found out that their wives had been slippin'around with Obama they would still vote for him as long as he has a D next to his name on the ballot. The so called 'independent' voters will probably be more interested in his poor track record, and they are the ones who put him in office last time.

You're a hoot, Henry!
And wrong, as usual!:)

genglandoh
05-02-2012, 07:56 PM
'cause hanging was too good for 'em?

Really, if scandals like the non-existent WMDs and making torture the official policy of the U.S. Government didn't keep Bush from being re-elected, and being impeached didn't keep Clinton from being re-elected, scandals apparently don't have the power over voters minds that they are supposed to. I'd say it's the economy, and based on what's happening, it's going to be a close election.

John, I think you are right.
Thanks for reminding us all that there were some scandals in the past that did not prevent other Presidents from being re-elected.

So I guess these scandals will pass.

johnw
05-02-2012, 08:05 PM
John, I think you are right.
Thanks for reminding us all that there were some scandals in the past that did not prevent other Presidents from being re-elected.

So I guess these scandals will pass.

Yep, and given the level of these scandals compared to those of Bush II and Clinton, I'd say they're pretty minor.

LeeG
05-02-2012, 08:46 PM
"3. If Gas prices stay high or go higher then the EPA Crucify them scandal will be used to explain how the EPA has helped cause high Gas prices."

Geng, WTF does this mean?

johnw
05-03-2012, 02:12 AM
"3. If Gas prices stay high or go higher then the EPA Crucify them scandal will be used to explain how the EPA has helped cause high Gas prices."

Geng, WTF does this mean?

don't do this, I just got him calmed down and ready for bed.

Tom Montgomery
05-03-2012, 04:13 AM
You're a hoot, Henry!
And wrong, as usual!:)

Of course Henry is wrong. :rolleyes:

I have voted for both Republican and Democratic presidential candidates. I wonder if Henry can say the same?

Hank Rearden
05-03-2012, 05:35 AM
Of course Henry is wrong. :rolleyes:

I have voted for both Republican and Democratic presidential candidates. I wonder if Henry can say the same?

No. During the time I've been eligible to vote there hasn't been a Democrat candidate that I voted for. There have been a small number of Democrats I may have voted for if they were nominated, but they weren't. I can't think of any current Democrats that I would vote for under any circumstances.

John Smith
05-03-2012, 06:37 AM
The loyal Obaminos will vote for him no matter what. If they found out that their wives had been slippin'around with Obama they would still vote for him as long as he has a D next to his name on the ballot. The so called 'independent' voters will probably be more interested in his poor track record, and they are the ones who put him in office last time.

I don't consider myself a loyal Obamanist. I will vote for him. When you cut through all the political smoke, here is a president who tends to think before speaking, and whose family would be the poster family for those family values the Republicans are always preaching, except for the color of his skin.

The alternative to Obama is Romney: the man who has stayed silent while an adviser whom he claims to respect is forced to resign because he's gay. The man who said, then, that looking for Bin Laden wouldn't be worth the cost, but now claims he'd make the same decision Obama made is hardly worthy of my vote. the man who complained and criticized Obama's handling of the auto industry, but now claims it was all his idea, is hardly worthy of my vote.

Given the hand he was dealt, Obama has done a pretty good job, IMO. I am disappointed that Gitmo is still open, but he did make an effort to close it. He had but a brief period where there were 60 votes in the senate, and the filibuster succeeded in blocking most of what he would have done.

The president has no control over gas prices and to say he does is dishonest, or uninformed.

Some of us remember tha that Bush inherited a balanced budget with a surplus, and a world at peace. What did Obama inherit?

It is also dishonest to say Obama has not given credit to all those involved in the raid that killed Bin Laden: he did. It's also dishonest not to give Obama credit for making the tough decisions at that moment. It would have been easy to drop a bomb on that complex, but that would have destroyed the computers and files and the valuable data they contained.

GM is still with us. Romney's changing position on that is simply another reason not to vote for him.

People tend to get on bandwagons. I can look at Obama's presidency and see decisions he's made I disagree with. I can see other decisions I do agree with. I am not a supporter of Obamacare, as it keeps our employer based system which is counter productive to job creation. However, it is not the monster the Republican lies have made it out to be.

We're living in a strange time: womens' rights issues which I thought were decided years ago are resurfacing. Looks like a war on women to me, and that's a scandal, IMO.

Laws that prohibit legally qualified voters to vote are also a scandal in my book.

Let's hold our elected people responsible for what they are responsible for, not for things they are not responsible for.

John Smith
05-03-2012, 06:43 AM
'cause hanging was too good for 'em?

Really, if scandals like the non-existent WMDs and making torture the official policy of the U.S. Government didn't keep Bush from being re-elected, and being impeached didn't keep Clinton from being re-elected, scandals apparently don't have the power over voters minds that they are supposed to. I'd say it's the economy, and based on what's happening, it's going to be a close election.

I'm not so sure. Yes, the economy will be a large part, but womens' health issues are part of their economic issues. I suspect MOST women will be hard pressed to vote for Romney. Given his silence on his campaigns gay issue, I suspect most gays (and their close friends/families) will be hard pressed to vote for Romney. Remember, support for gay marriage is growing, and the republican candidates said they'd reinstate DADT. Can anyone be sure that Romney won't? Would they take the chance?

Then there's the voter ID laws that are aimed at minorities, the elderly, and the young.

If these trends continue, this may be a more lopsided election than one might think.

John Smith
05-03-2012, 06:49 AM
No. During the time I've been eligible to vote there hasn't been a Democrat candidate that I voted for. There have been a small number of Democrats I may have voted for if they were nominated, but they weren't. I can't think of any current Democrats that I would vote for under any circumstances.

We could tell. Here's my problem with that. The Republcan candidates all invoke Reagan's name. Reagan was very popular, but he did not believe in those things these people are invoking his name to support. He couldn't get today's Republican nomination for dog catcher.

One of the great myths of recent years is Republicans are better custodians of our finances and our security. History has proven both of those wrong.

You cannot be honest with yourself and not acknowledge that Bush and the Republicans raped this country.

"Everyone" did not believe Saddam had WMD's or was involved in 9/11. It may make those who did believe so feel better to believe so, but it is simply not true.

Tom Montgomery
05-03-2012, 08:15 AM
Of course Henry is wrong. :rolleyes:

I have voted for both Republican and Democratic presidential candidates. I wonder if Henry can say the same?


No. During the time I've been eligible to vote there hasn't been a Democrat candidate that I voted for. There have been a small number of Democrats I may have voted for if they were nominated, but they weren't. I can't think of any current Democrats that I would vote for under any circumstances.

Just as I suspected. You have no room to complain about people who feel exactly the same way about Republicans. :rolleyes:


The so called 'independent' voters will probably be more interested in his [Obama's] poor track record, and they are the ones who put him in office last time.

Hmmm.... My lifetime votes:

Richard Nixon (R)
Jimmy Carter (D)
Ronald Reagan (R)
Walter Mondale (D)

I then changed my voter registration from "Republican" to "Democrat." Y>

Ross Perot (I)
Ross Perot (I)
Al Gore (D)
John Kerry (D)
Barack Obama (D)

Five Democrats, two Republicans and twice for an Independent.

I think that qualifies me as a so-called 'independent' voter. I guess you'll have to abide by my decision in November, Henry. Maybe I will one day vote for another Republican presidential candidate if the party can ever again nominate a credible candidate.

Concordia 33
05-03-2012, 08:31 AM
EPA is practicing crucifixion?

You need to catch up on the news more. An EPA staffer made a speech where he talked about how when the Romans came to a new city they would pick the first 5 people they came upon and crucify them and it would guarantee that this city would not be a problem for years to come. He then went on to say that that is what he did to an oil company. He has since had to resign I think his name was AL Armendariz. I found it, here is the story.........





Washington (CNN) -- The head of the Environmental Protection Agency's office in Dallas has resigned over comments he made in 2010 that became the focus of political condemnation last week.EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson said Monday that she accepted a letter of resignation from Al Armendariz."I respect the difficult decision he made and his wish to avoid distracting from the important work of the agency," Jackson said in a written statement.In the letter dated Sunday, Armendariz said he regrets his comments, adding that they did not reflect on his work or the work of the EPA.The controversy erupted last week when a video surfaced showing Armendariz saying in 2010 that his methods for dealing with non-compliant oil and gas companies were "like when the Romans conquered the villages in the Mediterranean. They'd go into little villages in Turkish towns and they'd find the first five guys they saw and crucify them."Sen. James Inhofe's office told CNN it uncovered the video while preparing for a blistering half-hour Senate floor speech that Inhofe delivered Wednesday. In the speech, the Republican from Oklahoma criticized the Obama administration's energy policies and cited Armendariz in particular."His comments give us a rare glimpse into the Obama administration's true agenda," Inofe said.After the video went viral, Armendariz quickly issued an apology. But Inhofe rejected the apology, and the White House and EPA dissociated themselves from the administrator's remarks."Administrator Armendariz apologized yesterday for his 'poor choice of words' when he admitted that EPA's 'general philosophy' is to 'crucify' and 'make examples' of oil and gas companies, but he did not apologize for EPA's actions towards its apparent crucifixion victims," Inhofe said.

SMARTINSEN
05-03-2012, 08:42 AM
Inhofe is one of the worst troglodytes of them all.

Why should the EPA apologize for enforcing the law?

Concordia 33
05-03-2012, 08:48 AM
Inhofe is one of the worst troglodytes of them all.

Why should the EPA apologize for enforcing the law?


I think that a representative of the government bragging to a crowd that he likes to "crucify" certain business to get them to cooperate would be a gross abuse of power and is far different than simply enforcing the law.

ccmanuals
05-03-2012, 08:50 AM
I think that a representative of the government bragging to a crowd that he likes to "crucify" certain business to get them to cooperate would be a gross abuse of power and is far different than simply enforcing the law.

When are US Congressmen accused of gross abuse of power for some of the crazy sh!!t they say?

Concordia 33
05-03-2012, 08:55 AM
When are US Congressmen accused of gross abuse of power for some of the crazy sh!!t they say?

Please don't try to justify one inappropriate act with another. Since I have no idea what you are referring to I cannot comment on its potential inappropriateness. Maybe you could say more about what you are referring to at least - I am certain there are many examples in government of abuse of power. None are jsuttified regardless of the "R" or "D" after their name.

Concordia 33
05-03-2012, 09:07 AM
In reply to the OP. It's hard to say if these scandals will effect his re-election. Some of that depends on how well his campaign can execute damage control, as well as how much the media jumps on these issues vs burying them. One thing is for sure, he finally has a record to run on for better and for worse.

TomF
05-03-2012, 09:08 AM
Please don't try to justify one inappropriate act with another. ... I am certain there are many examples in government of abuse of power. None are jsuttified regardless of the "R" or "D" after their name.I agree wholeheartedly.

I also think, though, that in some industries there's been a history of "cutting the guys some slack" when it comes to enforcing the actual law. Perhaps in the banking industry, perhaps in the oil/gas sector, perhaps elsewhere. One hears stories about illegal immigrants working in construction, agriculture and landscaping in the US ... Up here, major construction projects have a black eye, as do some elements of our natural resource industries.

While I've no truck with the idea of Government inventing reasons to hammer businesses in an abuse of power, I do think that a rather forceful application of the actual law can be a useful corrective at times - especially when that law has been allowed to be a bit slack prior. It signals that a new administration has different priorities than the old, and that while negotiations may be appropriate going forward ... they'll be conducted on a different basis.

I wish to God that we'd had such decisive action respecting the fishery, oil/gas, and various other industries - we'd be in quite a different situation. Up here, our current federal Government is actually taking steps to formalize and increase slackness ... which bodes poorly.

Concordia 33
05-03-2012, 09:10 AM
I agree wholeheartedly.

I also think, though, that in some industries there's been a history of "cutting the guys some slack" when it comes to enforcing the actual law. Perhaps in the banking industry, perhaps in the oil/gas sector, perhaps elsewhere. Up here, major construction projects have a black eye, as do some elements of our natural resource industries.

While I've no truck with the idea of Government inventing reasons to hammer businesses in an abuse of power, I do think that a rather forceful application of the actual law can be a useful corrective at times - especially when that law has been allowed to be a bit slack prior. It signals that a new administration has different priorities than the old, and that while negotiations may be appropriate going forward ... they'll be conducted on a different basis.

I wish to God that we'd had such decisive action respecting the fishery, oil/gas, and various other industries - we'd be in quite a different situation. Up here, our current federal Government is actually taking steps to formalize and increase slackness ... which bodes poorly.

I agree, I don't believe any favoritism should occur either. The rules are the rules....follow them or change them legally, but don't ignore them.

ccmanuals
05-03-2012, 09:12 AM
Please don't try to justify one inappropriate act with another. Since I have no idea what you are referring to I cannot comment on its potential inappropriateness. Maybe you could say more about what you are referring to at least - I am certain there are many examples in government of abuse of power. None are jsuttified regardless of the "R" or "D" after their name.

Then why did you cherry pick what one EPA civil servant said in a speech as if this guy spoke for the entire agency?

Concordia 33
05-03-2012, 09:32 AM
Then why did you cherry pick what one EPA civil servant said in a speech as if this guy spoke for the entire agency?

Maybe you should go back and read the series of posts and who said what. The OP ( by glenlandoh) discussed several of President Obama's scandals including the EPA 'crucifying' businesses. LeeG then said "the EPA is practicing crucifixions". It seemed as if he was unaware of this scandal and I was merely explaining the reference. There was no "cherry pick" on my part. Perhaps you should catch up on the whole thread before jumping in with accusations.

Gerarddm
05-03-2012, 09:39 AM
Relatively speaking, there are no Obama scandals, so there is no need for this thread.

LeeG
05-03-2012, 09:39 AM
You need to catch up on the news more. An EPA staffer made a speech where he talked about how when the Romans came to a new city they would pick the first 5 people they came upon and crucify them and it would guarantee that this city would not be a problem for years to come. He then went on to say that that is what he did to an oil company. He has since had to resign I think his name was AL Armendariz. I found it, here is the story.........

and this is a scandal for Obama?

Holy crap GW invaded Iraq on lies, sacrificed 100,000's lives, put a couple trillion of unfunded war on the economy, caused the largest refugee crisis in the middle east since WWII, blew US reputation in the world and AMERICA VOTED HIM IN FOR A SECOND TERM WHILE HE TALKED ABOUT MANNED MISSIONS TO MARS.

You think an EPA staffers comment is a scandal that matters to America?

If Obama sends a pic of his crotch to a teenage hooker it'll be a scandal, an EPA staffers impolitic metaphor ain't one.

John Smith
05-03-2012, 09:47 AM
In reply to the OP. It's hard to say if these scandals will effect his re-election. Some of that depends on how well his campaign can execute damage control, as well as how much the media jumps on these issues vs burying them. One thing is for sure, he finally has a record to run on for better and for worse.

Yes, and part of that record includes killing Bin Laden, but when he runs on it, the Republicans still object. In one breath, Romney says Obama can't run on his record, then in the next breath he complains when Obama does run on his record.

I'm still perplexed as to how scandals within the Secret Service are Obama's scandals. I sense wishful thinking that these scandals will bring him down if saying he wasn't born here doesn't.

LeeG
05-03-2012, 09:49 AM
Inhofe is one of the worst troglodytes of them all.

Why should the EPA apologize for enforcing the law?

Because the over regulation by Big Gov't is preventing America from growing exponentially in this century like we did in the last century. If the EPA let Hard Working Americans and the Free Market access to the infinite cornucopia of non-renewable fossil fuels we'll be growing again just like we did in the '50s. See the future can be like the past if the unreasonable obstacles set up by Big Gov't are removed.
It's a major talking point for the Republican candidate for prezdent. It's all about America, of the last century.

http://www.mittromney.com/issues/energy

Energy, pro-jobs, pro-market, pro-American

The first step will be a rational and streamlined approach to regulation, which would facilitate rapid progress in the development of our domestic reserves of oil and natural gas and allow for further investment in nuclear power.

The United States is blessed with a cornucopia of carbon-based energy resources. Developing them has been a pathway to prosperity for the nation in the past and offers similar promise for the future.

Concordia 33
05-03-2012, 10:00 AM
Yes, and part of that record includes killing Bin Laden, but when he runs on it, the Republicans still object. In one breath, Romney says Obama can't run on his record, then in the next breath he complains when Obama does run on his record.

I'm still perplexed as to how scandals within the Secret Service are Obama's scandals. I sense wishful thinking that these scandals will bring him down if saying he wasn't born here doesn't.


I give him credit for giving the kill order. I give him credit for being a part of the team (the leader of the team) that did this, but but finding and killing him was a process that took years and thousands of people. To use it to campaign (especially with the voice of President Clinton predicting that Romney would not have given the order) cheapens his substantial contribution. And while we are on it, President Clinton (who passed on 2 opportunities to kill OBL) has got some nerve predicting what anyone else would have done here.

You are really shifting the focus of this thread and I am sure one of your liberal bilge mates who don't like that will chime in here. The OP was about how the scandals will effect his re-election. If you want to question whether or not the OP actually listed a scandal, I would imagine that as reasonable, but you sould be starting a separate thread if you want to talk about whether President Obama's accomplishments will help his re-election.

John Smith
05-03-2012, 10:11 AM
Because the over regulation by Big Gov't is preventing America from growing exponentially in this century like we did in the last century. If the EPA let Hard Working Americans and the Free Market access to the infinite cornucopia of non-renewable fossil fuels we'll be growing again just like we did in the '50s. See the future can be like the past if the unreasonable obstacles set up by Big Gov't are removed.
It's a major talking point for the Republican candidate for prezdent. It's all about America, of the last century.

http://www.mittromney.com/issues/energy

Energy, pro-jobs, pro-market, pro-American

The first step will be a rational and streamlined approach to regulation, which would facilitate rapid progress in the development of our domestic reserves of oil and natural gas and allow for further investment in nuclear power.

The United States is blessed with a cornucopia of carbon-based energy resources. Developing them has been a pathway to prosperity for the nation in the past and offers similar promise for the future.
More talking points that don't stand up. What over regulation was put in place during the G.W. years that account for how poorly our economy did during his terms? The Wall Street collapse was too little, not too much, regulation.

The EPA is a popular target of those who cry about too much regulation. I'm old enough to remember what things were like before Nixon signed the EPA into existance, and, believe me, you don't want to go back there. Imagine being out on a body of water for a pleasant afternoon sail and the water catches fire with you and your boat in the middle of it. That, my friend, is unregulated business.

SMARTINSEN
05-03-2012, 10:18 AM
LeeG it is remarkable, and a sad comment, IMHO, that a significant portion of this country would agree with you 100% or more if they could, without even the slightest whiff of snark.

ccmanuals
05-03-2012, 10:20 AM
Maybe you should go back and read the series of posts and who said what. The OP ( by glenlandoh) discussed several of President Obama's scandals including the EPA 'crucifying' businesses. LeeG then said "the EPA is practicing crucifixions". It seemed as if he was unaware of this scandal and I was merely explaining the reference. There was no "cherry pick" on my part. Perhaps you should catch up on the whole thread before jumping in with accusations.

Wasn't it you that said the EPA official exhibited a gross abuse of power?

Concordia 33
05-03-2012, 10:22 AM
Wasn't it you that said the EPA official exhibited a gross abuse of power?
Yes I did. So......

John Smith
05-03-2012, 10:22 AM
I give him credit for giving the kill order. I give him credit for being a part of the team (the leader of the team) that did this, but but finding and killing him was a process that took years and thousands of people. To use it to campaign (especially with the voice of President Clinton predicting that Romney would not have given the order) cheapens his substantial contribution. And while we are on it, President Clinton (who passed on 2 opportunities to kill OBL) has got some nerve predicting what anyone else would have done here.

You are really shifting the focus of this thread and I am sure one of your liberal bilge mates who don't like that will chime in here. The OP was about how the scandals will effect his re-election. If you want to question whether or not the OP actually listed a scandal, I would imagine that as reasonable, but you sould be starting a separate thread if you want to talk about whether President Obama's accomplishments will help his re-election.

That's big of you. How about giving him credit for re-authorizing the search for Bin Laden: something Bush had cancelled? The OP mentioned scandals that may have occurred while he is president, but that hardly makes them his scandals. Apparently the criteria for what a president's scandal is varies with the party of the president.

LeeG
05-03-2012, 10:23 AM
The EPA is a popular target of those who cry about too much regulation.

It's easier for some to focus on the consequence than the cause of change.

wardd
05-03-2012, 10:24 AM
No. During the time I've been eligible to vote there hasn't been a Democrat candidate that I voted for. There have been a small number of Democrats I may have voted for if they were nominated, but they weren't. I can't think of any current Democrats that I would vote for under any circumstances.

i bet you'd blindly vote for mitt

ccmanuals
05-03-2012, 10:25 AM
And while we are on it, President Clinton (who passed on 2 opportunities to kill OBL) has got some nerve predicting what anyone else would have done here.




http://www.snopes.com/rumors/clinton.asp

John Smith
05-03-2012, 10:34 AM
It's easier for some to focus on the consequence than the cause of change.

Maybe they should focus on the fact that our air and water are less polluted.

Some here I guess remember when emmission standards for cars came to be. The American companies went to court to try to beat them. The foreign companies went to their engineers to try to meet them. Lead came out of gas. We were told that the lead was needed for the valve seats. I had a nice of Dodge built in '66. I drove it past the turn of the century. It thrived on unleaded gas. Without the lead, the exhaust system lasted longer. So why was that lead in the gas?

I lived on a fairly busy street. It took 24 hours for that nice white snow along that street to turn black from the traffic. Later, it took much longer for the snow to develop any color.

I guess scandals are subjective. I thought rivers catching fire was scandalous. I think the lies about Obamacare are scandalous. I thought lying us into war was scandalous. I think Gitmo still being open is scandalous. Our country condoning and using torture is scandalous. The way we treat our vets is scandalous. The concept of cutting taxes for the wealthy while paying for it by cutting benefits (which in the same as raising taxes) for the poor is scandalous. Putting some stupid pledge to Grover Norquist above the pledge to support our constitution is scandalous.

Obama has a place in some of this, but let's not call all scandals that happen during his administration his scandals.

John Smith
05-03-2012, 10:39 AM
http://www.snopes.com/rumors/clinton.asp

Thank you. Notice how facts don't change already made up minds. Who is it that keeps telling the American people that Clinton passed on getting Bin Laden when he was offered? Fox. Hannity et al.

This is the biggest scandal, IMO, in the country. One can watch the news faithfully and get fed a lot of fiction as fact.

wardd
05-03-2012, 10:39 AM
Yes, and part of that record includes killing Bin Laden, but when he runs on it, the Republicans still object. In one breath, Romney says Obama can't run on his record, then in the next breath he complains when Obama does run on his record.

I'm still perplexed as to how scandals within the Secret Service are Obama's scandals. I sense wishful thinking that these scandals will bring him down if saying he wasn't born here doesn't.

is this ss behavior new or has it been going n for years?

LeeG
05-03-2012, 10:40 AM
I think that a representative of the government bragging to a crowd that he likes to "crucify" certain business to get them to cooperate would be a gross abuse of power and is far different than simply enforcing the law.

crucifixion would be far different than enforcing the law, how about water boarding instead?

LeeG
05-03-2012, 10:44 AM
So why was that lead in the gas?



I think it was because there was a patent on making tetraethyl lead, and it worked for the intended purpose for a low cost. After awhile industry couldn't ignore what their own chemists were saying, breathing and ingesting lead will be a problem once enough cars were on the road.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tetraethyl_lead#History

Tetraethyllead was first discovered by a German chemist in 1854, but remained commercially unused for many years.[17] In 1921, TEL was found to be an effective antiknock agent by Thomas Midgley, working under Charles Kettering at General Motors Corporation Research.[21] General Motors patented the use of TEL as a knocking agent and called it "Ethyl" in its marketing materials, thereby avoiding the negative connotation of the word "lead".[17] By 1923, leaded gasoline was being sold.[22] In 1924, Standard Oil of New Jersey (ESSO/EXXON) and General Motors created the Ethyl Gasoline Corporation to produce and market TEL.

In the U.S. in 1972, the EPA launched an initiative to phase out leaded gasoline based on a regulation under the authority of the Clean Air Act Extension of 1970. Ethyl Corp's response was to sue the EPA. Although the EPA's regulation was initially dismissed,[22] the EPA won the case on appeal, so the TEL phaseout began in 1976 and was completed by 1986. A 1994 study indicated that the concentration of lead in the blood of the U.S. population had dropped 78% from 1976 to 1991.[27]

wardd
05-03-2012, 10:51 AM
what the bush admin did to capture alqueda leaders



My colleague Mackenzie Weinger just
posted a comment (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0512/75826.html)
from former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld questioning just how tough a call President Obama made when he gave the kill order to the SEAL team targeting Osama bin Laden.“You mentioned there was a tough decision,” Rumsfeld said on Tuesday night on Fox News. “I don’t think it was a tough decision. We’ve seen a lot of instances where presidents over the years have had to make decisions like that.”But six years ago, Rumsfeld himself called off a major raid in Pakistan, citing many of the same factors that Obama administration officials complicated the OBL mission.In 2007, Mark Mazetti of the Times reported (http://link%20http//www.nytimes.com/2007/07/08/washington/08intel.html?_r=1&pagewanted=print):

A secret military operation in early 2005 to capture senior members of Al Qaeda in Pakistan’s tribal areas was aborted at the last minute after top Bush administration officials decided it was too risky and could jeopardize relations with Pakistan, according to intelligence and military officials.
The target was a meeting of Qaeda leaders that intelligence officials thought included Ayman al-Zawahri, Osama bin Laden’s top deputy and the man believed to run the terrorist group’s operations.


But the mission was called off after Donald H. Rumsfeld, then the defense secretary, rejected an 11th-hour appeal by Porter J. Goss, then the director of the Central Intelligence Agency, officials said. Members of a Navy Seals unit in parachute gear had already boarded C-130 cargo planes in Afghanistan when the mission was canceled, said a former senior intelligence official involved in the planning.
Mr. Rumsfeld decided that the operation, which had ballooned from a small number of military personnel and C.I.A. operatives to several hundred, was cumbersome and put too many American lives at risk, the current and former officials said. He was also concerned that it could cause a rift with Pakistan, an often reluctant ally that has barred the American military from operating in its tribal areas, the officials said.


The decision to halt the planned “snatch and grab” operation frustrated some top intelligence officials and members of the military’s secret Special Operations units, who say the United States missed a significant opportunity to try to capture senior members of Al Qaeda.


http://www.politico.com/politico44/2012/05/rumsfeld-called-off-bin-laden-raid-despite-downplaying-122287.html

Tom Montgomery
05-03-2012, 11:29 AM
http://www.snopes.com/rumors/clinton.asp

Yeah, but if it gets repeated often enough some become convinced it is the truth.

Concordia 33
05-03-2012, 12:01 PM
what the bush admin did to capture alqueda leaders



http://www.politico.com/politico44/2012/05/rumsfeld-called-off-bin-laden-raid-despite-downplaying-122287.html

Where is BrianY when you need him to keep the thread on topic? The thread is about whether the Obama Scandals will effect his re-election and has nothing to do with what the Bush Administration did, or did or didn't do. It is an attempt to argue about an entirely different subject.

S.V. Airlie
05-03-2012, 12:05 PM
Talking of people blindly voting for a candidate..ROTFLMAO.too funny.

wardd
05-03-2012, 12:07 PM
Where is BrianY when you need him to keep the thread on topic? The thread is about whether the Obama Scandals will effect his re-election and has nothing to do with what the Bush Administration did, or did or didn't do. It is an attempt to argue about an entirely different subject.

those that create artificial scandals should be called on the actual scandals they didn't decry

wardd
05-03-2012, 12:07 PM
Talking of people blindly voting for a candidate..ROTFLMAO.too funny.

not to worry, i wouldn't blindly vote for you

S.V. Airlie
05-03-2012, 12:15 PM
You'd vote for a corpse if the guy had been a democrat. You probably have.If I was running I wouldn't need your vote. No ID anyway. No indication of what you are and even without ID, 5 is too young to vote.

wardd
05-03-2012, 12:24 PM
You'd vote for a corpse if the guy had been a democrat. You probably have.If I was running I wouldn't need your vote. No ID anyway. No indication of what you are and even without ID, 5 is too young to vote.

the dead vote for the dead

Flying Orca
05-03-2012, 12:26 PM
http://www.snopes.com/rumors/clinton.asp

Not that tired old "fear, hate, and lies" thing again! (Oops, pardon me, it's not "lies", it's "insufficient fact-checking"...)

genglandoh
09-22-2012, 07:15 AM
I normally think voters do not hold the sitting Presidentresponsible for scandal that he is not personally involved it, but as the listkeeps growing I think it is starting to affect his re-election chances.
What do you think?
Here is a list of some of the recent scandals I am talking about


GSA Party spending
Secret Service hooker scandal
Fast and Furious gun running program
EPA Crucify them -Scandal
His methods for conduction war on Terrorists less human then Bush.
Shoot them, do not capture them.
Nancy Pelosi denies being told about waterboarding



Just a little update.
1. The SS Hooker Scandal
It looks like the White House advanced team was involved.



http://abclocal.go.com/kabc/story?section=news/national_world&id=8820240
WASHINGTON (KABC) -- Investigating the prostitution scandal at the Secret Service, the Homeland Security Department's inspector general uncovered a hotel record suggesting a member of President Barack Obama's team might have been involved, according to a summary of the case submitted to Congress. A senior administration official told The Associated Press the White House determined the record was false and that the person in question did nothing wrong.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5guIozXiVTlITKonK4yr1koKELnjA?docId=0fb2749cb d1140a88a04c2905545b9b5
WASHINGTON (AP) Investigating the prostitution scandal at the Secret Service, the Homeland Security Department's inspector general uncovered a hotel record suggesting a member of President Barack Obama's team might have been involved, according to a summary of the case submitted to Congress. A senior administration official told The Associated Press the White House determined the record was false and that the person in question did nothing wrong.


2. Sexual misconduct in the Department of Homeland Security

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/01/suzanne-barr-resigns_n_1849292.html
WASHINGTON A senior Obama administration political appointee and longtime aide to Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano resigned Saturday amid allegations of inappropriate sexual behavior lodged by at least three Immigration and Customs Enforcement employees.

LeeG
09-22-2012, 07:21 AM
Hey Geng, how are the polls taking the news?

Keith Wilson
09-22-2012, 08:35 AM
Do you think the Obama Scandals will affect the election?No.

The independent GSA report on 'Fast and Furious' just came out. While it was a bad screwup, Holder had nothing to do with it, and the paranoid fantasies of the far right have proven to be, of course, completely unfounded. That one's dead.

The others were silly little flashes in the pan, now long forgotten by anyone who might possibly vote for Obama.

ljb5
09-22-2012, 09:06 AM
I enjoy these threads.

They reveal nothing about the state of the campaigns, the results of the polls or the eventual outcome of the election....

...but they do reveal an enormous amount about Geng's thought process.

It would be fascinating to examine a PET scan of Geng's brain alongside that of a healthy person. Apparently, the portions of his brain that are obsessed with minutiae are oversized and hyperactive, while the portions used for determining relevancy are atrophied.

Garret
09-22-2012, 10:25 AM
You need to catch up on the news more. An EPA staffer made a speech where he talked about how when the Romans came to a new city they would pick the first 5 people they came upon and crucify them and it would guarantee that this city would not be a problem for years to come. He then went on to say that that is what he did to an oil company. He has since had to resign I think his name was AL Armendariz. I found it, here is the story.........

He said something stupid. He then apologized & then resigned (probably under pressure from above). This is the first time that's happened in any administration? Small thunderstorm in a teapot - only on the national news for more than a day or so because a certain network won't let it go.

Garret
09-22-2012, 10:28 AM
2. Sexual misconduct in the Department of Homeland Security

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/01/suzanne-barr-resigns_n_1849292.html
WASHINGTON — A senior Obama administration political appointee and longtime aide to Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano resigned Saturday amid allegations of inappropriate sexual behavior lodged by at least three Immigration and Customs Enforcement employees.

I'll repeat what I previously said: This sort of thing has never happened before? No low level official in a gov't agency has ever sexually harassed an employee before the Obama administration? Right......

At least this one resigned - probably also under pressure. Another rain squall in a teacup.