Obama Email to Supporters: If I Lose, It's Your Fault

reply to post by RancorXXX


What's so hard to believe?
This is typical Obama, always blaming others for his failures.
Haven't you noticed his writing style and speech patterns.
He conveniently uses the words "I" and "we" interchangeably, based how he will look in the eyes of his followers because it's all about perception and popularity.

Ex:
When there is something positive and absolute, he says "I or me"
When there is a potential that something may not go his way, he says "we or us"

Originally posted by RancorXXX
What a load of distorted rubbish, OP.

Brietbart is a highly partisan, borderline hoax site of epic failure. This is just another example of that. A campaign letter to supporters reads the same, no matter who is the politician is. Romney, Gary Johnson, all write the same BS to their supporters.

That's the first thing I noticed. Both Brietbart and WND make even Fox News and MSNBC/NBC look fair and balanced.

Anyhow, the voters determine the election and it's wise for Obama to remind them of that. Apathy will only result in a result they won't be happy with. The fund raising part is just part of the normal political routine.

This reminds me that my local Republican representative, Bill Flores, just recently sent out a request through the USPS for donations disguised as a poll using House of Representative funds for official business. Of course, the letter complains about wasteful government spending among other things. So, I don't have much hope things wil change with Republicans in office.

reply to post by Alxandro


You only choose to see him that way because of the negative narrative built up by sites like Brietbart or Fox news or any of the right-wing political sites. That was their goal, to get their following to hate on O based on their partisan attacks.

I re-read the letter, and I just don't see him "blaming" anyone. It's a campaign letter to his supporters extolling them to get out and campaign. EVERY CAMPAIGN has identical letters. The only difference here, is that the right-wing media sites ignore those, while focusing only on O, and then heaping in a big load of steamy BS on top of that.

I consider myself apolitical. I don't support either side. But I also don't buy into the lies of one side about the other. This entire thread topic is just a lie. Only fools should fall for it.

I get all of those emails and not one of them directly blame the voter for the outcome. At worse, they try to scare the recipient with Romney's overwhelming support from corporate interests and the emails sound like public radio telethons.

Really, though... they're not that bad. I'm not even sure why anybody would worry. I think part of why Obama's campaign isn't raising much is because it seems pointless. Romney has alienated just about everybody he can except for the ultra-wealthy and those who just hate Obama (because he's democrat, I'm sure). I know a lot here will disagree but I would be really really really surprised if Romney gets even close to winning this election.

reply to post by Alxandro


I tend to do exactly the opposite. So, no wonder I find this man so alienating?

reply to post by jjkenobi


????????

The whole point is to show who is the 2012 election is funded by. What is yours?

is funny

this still doesn't make me want to vote for romney so he can deregulate the banks and big oil, and give my money to the rich

Originally posted by AlphaHawk
Here's the email for anyone interested in what was actually said:

When I'm out there talking to voters, we talk about what we've done, what we plan to do over the next four years, and why the other guys have dangerous plans to go back to the policies that failed America for almost a decade.

But there is another question that keeps coming up, and you need to know about it: "Why do I see so many more ads for the other guys?"

You don't need me to tell you that the Romney campaign is outraising us -- that billionaire ideologues and corporate interests are piling on tens of millions more in negative ads trashing us, and that all of it means that undecided voters in battleground states like Iowa could be seeing false, misleading, negative attacks at a rate almost twice as often as they hear from us.

Last week, when I was in Iowa, voters told me they were feeling it. The numbers back it up: Our side is getting outspent 2-to-1 on the air there.

But the folks asking me about this don't want an explanation -- they want to know what I'm going to do about it.

And the fact is that solving this problem is up to you.

Close the gap on the air by making a donation of $5 or more now.

You're getting this email because you know what the stakes are in this election. You know the facts about what we've done to prevent a deeper crisis and to start building an economy that works for the middle class.

But for someone who's not as engaged, these ads may be an important and possibly even primary source of information about the choice in this election.

So it's a bad situation if 90 percent of them are false, negative attacks on us.

www.weeklystandard.com...

Obama, yet AGAIN, blaming others and not accepting responsibility for his own actions. He must have skipped the "cause and effect" classes. He is now sounding like a whimpering baby, unable to stand on his own two feet, on his own history that the people can see and believe in.

reply to post by RancorXXX


For the record, I don't watch Fox and I don't visit Brietbart, I'm just commenting based on what I've observed.
Admit it, Obama is a narcissist, and the sooner you realize this, the sooner you can cope with it and prepare for the inevitable, that the Emporer's truly has no clothes.

Lets just wait another week or so.
I'm waiting to see what he will say and do, since tons of musical artists have decided to excuse themselves from performing at the Democrat convention.
Dont be surprised if he throws them under the bus.

reply to post by RealSpoke


oh cmon Obama's WH is stacked with Goldman Sachs employees. Where's the rest of that chart? I bet they cherry picked it.
In any case, Soros backed Hillary, Obama, and McCain last time around. Covering his bets he was.

And oh wait, didn't I just see a bunch of people here complaining about how romney was raising cash abroad?

American actor attends Geneva reception, gala dinner

* Events to raise some $500,000 for Obama campaign (Recasts with quotes from Clooney and donors)


GENEVA, Aug 27 (Reuters) - George Clooney was the star attraction on Monday in what was billed as the U.S. Democratic Party's biggest fundraising event abroad aimed at helping President Barack Obama win re-election.

in.reuters.com...
Apparently there are that many Democrats abroad in Switzerland. 100 people supposedldy paid $1000 a plate and about 35 people paid 15,000 a plate.

Who needs Goldman Sachs when you have other hedgefund managers lined up.

hedge fund billionaire Marc Lasry has also helped bring in big checks for Obama. He and some fellow Wall Street heavy hitters hosted a $35,800-a-plate dinner for the president’s re-election last summer at one of the city’s priciest restaurants, Daniel. The Avenue Capital Management honcho, worth $1.3 billion per Forbes’ most recent rich list, has raised between $200,000 and $500,000 for Obama to date. Like Benioff, Lasry has also given the maximum two $2,500 donations to the president’s campaign himself.

Then there's this billionaire CEO of an evil tech company

Marc Benioff, billionaire CEO of tech giant Salesforce.com, has been fighting for Obama since the second the president kicked off his 2012 re-election bid. In April 2011, he hosted a fundraising dinner at his San Francisco home.

www.forbes.com...
Whoever said Obama wasn't for the superrich.
Another superrich hedgefund guy and oh Bill Gates too

San Francisco hedge fund billionaire Tom Steyer is no stranger to politics, as my colleague Kerry Dolan reported in September. He threw in a $5 million donation—the single largest sum donated— to fight Proposition 23, a 2010 California ballot that would have quashed a law to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. He drove around the state campaigning and worked the phones to get donations from the likes of Bill Gates ($700,000) and billionaire hedge fund manager Julian Robertson ($500,000). His efforts paid off: The proposition was soundly defeated. Now, he’s backing Obama’s re-election bid, and has raised between $50,000 and $100,000 towards the cause to date. Like his fellow billionaire bundlers, he’s given the maximum person bid to the 2012 campaign: $5,000 in two gifts.

www.forbes.com...

And that's all just from march, who knows who else pitched in since.

reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus


Everyone on ATS understands that Obama is a wall-street puppet and was highly supported by banks in 2008. It's funny how you try to defend Romney by stating that Obama is or was the same way. Is that supposed to justify it? It's "normal", so who cares right?

From the source ...

But there is another question that keeps coming up, and you need to know about it: "Why do I see so many more ads for the other guys?"

I'm not buying it. A lot of people supposedly said this to Obama? Riiiiiiiight.

So either the Democrats who are Obama supporters don't understand that Obama puts out just as many ads (I've seen a ton of them) ... or Obama supporters dont' understand that Romney is allowed to have ads just like Obama is ... or Obama is telling a lead-in lie and people aren't saying this at all.

Pick any one of those reasons ... but I'm still over his statement.

reply to post by RealSpoke


It's not a matter of defending it. It's a matter of this whole topic was brought up only showing one side of the basic facts. That's called Bias. And when someone does that, the rebuttal you're supposed to give is the REST OF THE FACTS. It's not defensive. It's irrelevant if it's offensive. It's plain to make sure everyone has the full picture.