Just thought I'd get a jump on the MSM. Many right-leaning reporters are already saying if Obama shows up tonight, the left will declare him as the ultimate, supreme, audacious, awesome, comeback winner. lol
How convenient. If Obama wins it's a fake construct of the liberal media; if Romney wins it's because he's so awesome and Obama's so lame. Go GOP!
That would be very true if Obama went up against someone like Palin or Paul Ryan. Back in 2008 at the Vice President debate, the only way that Biden would of lost against Palin is if he failed to show up!
And the opposition will say Romney won and Obama rude if he stands up to him.
Candy Crowley is a lardass who has not one iota of a sense of the whole of importance of the USA's future at this point in history, the whole thing is clear set up, a planned q and a, and this is wholly clear to anyone with a moderate degree of intellect.
Crowley will never again be respected in any quarter of real politics are even MSNbC braindeads......well maybe those folks, not much of a level of . . . anything there.
Yes, it's a "planned q and a." I'm impressed you figured it out.
And I'm really curious about how you got so close to Candy's ass that you know what it's made of.
No one has to be very close at all . glad to hear you agree it was clear that much of the Q was revealed for a good A, not to mention Crowley was quite crawly in her deference to the current President's rebuttals....... chow..........
Well, I expect the questions were selected for their relevancy and to elicit answers. Whether they were "good" answers is for the voters to judge.
Chow? I assume you meant "ciao" unless that laser-like focus on Candy's ass somehow made you hungry.
Chow? Hmmm, perhaps you should do some research on that term and it's dual meaning, Obama would likely pay for a semester for you to do that. As for the questions? where they as pertinent as how Crowley maneuvered them was pertinent (as in relevant )? you really think that Libya should have been considered the least important? and held to last? Astounding.
Clearly a liberal construed and manipulated debate, quite shameful, and I really didn't know that hubpages tolerated using the word "ass", good to know. Basically, Crowley's lardass (a colloquialism that is insulting to a fat person) was regularly saying kiss my 'ass' when she would shut up Romney after she liked Obama's comments . . . IMO .
The excuses and conspiracy theories are flowing now.
Since you are so astute I am sure you have heard the recent news about the news lady being told she should not be on tv because she is too fat! Have you lost your mind, or have you just never had one! I guess if you were pres all the fat people would need to go as well as all black people, latino people, poor people....wow, your like to spew hate!
On the first debate us liberals admitted defeat, your party had a grand ole time spewing hateful hubs...so buck up sugar and learn to take it like a woman! One who still has all of her rights!
Yeah Tammy!!!!! Great rebuttle!!! Romney lost so they have to spew hate The questions were not rigged and the answers showed the truth that some can't take... LOL When you squeeze an orange you get orange juice when you squeeze Romney you get lies
Candy Crawley is a lardass?
If that's the best you people with a moderate degree of intellect can come up with,
I'll gladly remain stupid.
Why are you bringing up Candy Crowley's appearance at all?
The pathetic thing is that many look at these debates as having some indication of the candidates position and where they will focus their energies once elected. The reality is that once elected the candidates are thrown curvre balls as Bush was with the 911 attacks and Obama was with the economic meltdown. The direction at that point takes a drastic turn from the promises and intentions that were once espoused during the campaign. Bush screwed up when he went into Iran and left the conflict in Afghanistan to fall back into Al Qaeda and Taliban control. Obama screwed up when after bailing out the banks and the car companies he focused on healthcare rather than remaing focused on the economy.
These debates offer little with regard to what is in the candidates abilities as a leader. A standup comic could zing one liners all night much to the entertainment of the audience. But I think that many forget that in 2009 we were perched on the edge of the abyss and staring down into the bottomless pit without a safety net. Now many are looking for where that abyss went and why they are not more quickly getting back to normal. The short sightedness of Americans is a blessing and a curse. We like to remember and make legend our good times while downplaying and forgetting our tough times. Life is a series of ups and downs but we have no patience for it.
Romney offers a quick fix that plays right into that good times frame of mind but has not one new idea to achieve it. Back to the future with the same old theory? So many are blinded by this snake oil salesmen that it boggles the mind. Trickle down VooDoo economics never worked and never will as long as greed is the goal for those that would pay.
Obama offers a slow steady recovery that is unbearable to many and does not have the good time pay for awhile. Whether you like him or not he still is the only grown up in the room.
"The Selling of the President" nailed it...though I'm one of those left folk, I think Obama came out on top.
He has to do better than the last debate....Hopefully he's prepared and in the game tonight.
Here are some serious information sources. They are all included. No bias filtering.
Repression of the military vote.
Fake birth certificate.
OBAMA CRIMES. It's ALLHere.
Obama supporting the al Quaida.
Obama is a traitor
Obama & Cohorts backdoor dealings with the enemy.
This is the most important doccumentary
that is out today. Go out of your way to get it and watch it. It will shock even leftists. If everyone watched all he would be communist party votes.
Net,fl.I.x is now playing
Dreams from my real father
If you can, watch it. Invite friends to see it, but restraints might be needed, definitly be sitting down.
Your blood will boil.
If the whole country saw this, obama wouldn't even get 10 percent of the vote.
Even democrats will shun him after they watch this one.
Don't get out much among the "other side" do you, OLYHOOCH? One word for you: SENSATA. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tom-gaulr … 72021.html
MM, my thoughts exactly,LOl...they are already saying Obama looked angry..honestly, I thought Romney looked red faced the whole night. I am proud of my President:)
I almost fell of the couch, when, Bush came up.
Obama did win the debate in my opinion, but not as decisively as Romney won the first debate. Candy Crowley did a good job as moderator. She didn't let either one walk all over her as Lehrer did.
She clearly let Obama walk all over her, she clearly helped the poor man, and that I sincerely hope will be his undoing, but that ain't gonna happen, too many like Obama's check's and food cards in the mail, say good bye to the usa as we have all known it, and if you are a lib, the monkey's on your back, should be interesting about 40 years from now to hear the tales told of what once was, and what could have been, and what morons were suckered by the misguided ego needy media..........
The states getting the most of those welfare checks are... red states so obviously welfare support is not a very significant factor in the vote.
Maybe you should familiarize yourself with a population schedule.
And to other posts: Crowley did a good job? Hardly, her bias was quite transparent, and I pray to the good Lord, that Obama will be a distant yet always painful memory of the USA. Sadly, the current USA is allowed to ridicule statements such as I just made, and that you made in regard to the "good Lord", but not in reference to the "good Allah, or Mohammed" or whatever the heck Muslim's call their higher power - and more power to them, I've not a prob with that - just the hypocrisy of liberals. A Lib Using "the Lord" and cheering those who jump all over ridiculing Christianity -- it is just pointless to talk with Bill Maher followers, and Maher of course is an Obama dude that has contributed a Million bucks -- so . . . jeez how pointless.
Do you really want a President who is just too busy with whatever that he can't stay up on the curve when one of our embassies are bombed? What if it was a bombing of a little town in the eastern USA that took out 4 people? Would you think our POTUS would know about that by his 10aM go to work meeting? LOL
I'll be glad when dinosaurs like you have finally moved aside so that innovators and people who understand the concept of progress can move this country forward. You and your type are like a chain around the ankles of progress.
You apparently live under a rock with a tv tuned into FOX news, girl you need to grow up!
Yes, I suppose I should watch more than a few hours of MSNBc each day to get the clearer picture of Obama's debate prep and their readiness for a controlled situation.
Lehrer will go down in history as the only honest moderator in this presidential election. Kudos to him.
All I can do is feel sorry for you, I do not watch MSNBC, I watched the debate on CNN actually....You are funny with your analysis of the moderators....do some research and form an actual opinion instead of spewing hatred and repeating talking points.
KFlippin, my those grapes seem sour...She did a great job actually! And I pray to the good Lord above this has saved Obama's campaign, because the awful picture you are painting is exactly the world ran by R/R...A world where the poor get poorer and the rich get richer...a world where women lose rights they gained generations ago and fought hard to attain..a world where minorities are pressed down or thrown right out of the country...Romney made it sound pretty, but that is what he said about immigration...This country is for ALL AMERICANS...not just rich, white Americans!
I thought Candy C. did an excellent job. I'll admit, I was a little concerned that her "liberal bent" might show up, but it didn't. She was a real professional. In fact, I think she was actually a little tougher on Obama than she was on Romney.
I'm surprised Habee...
Obama got 3:10 more speaking time, and Candy inappropriately interjected herself into the discussion. MODERATORS DO NOT MAKE ARGUMENTS. I'm furious over it... anybody familiar with the rules of debate knows that moderators don't fact-check, they don't correct, they don't make arguments. They allot time and ask questions.
Habee called it the way she saw it. She's probably part of the Romney's 47%. It's sad to see a grown man cry when he doesn't get his way! lmao
Yeah! I'm tired of Obama being given more time in the debates. He has had over 7 minutes to speak more than Romney between the two debates.
Debates are supposed to be equal-time. Here are how the segments went.
Q1 - R - O - R - O
Ok, that's fair.
Q2 - O - R - O - R - O
That's not fair.
From that point on, it was ALMOST equal time, but Obama continued to gain time through the debate.
Candy was in the Rose Garden when he said that and she should have called BS on Romney,That tragedy should have never been politicized to begin with....she did the right thing!
Sorry, Jaxson. I'm not a debate expert; I'm just being honest about my take on the debate.
It's ok habee
I've done debate, I would be furious if a moderator interrupted me during my time to try and correct me. Also, they would never be allowed to moderate again after that. High school, college, in a debate club... it doesn't matter.
The worst part is the time. When she cheated Romney out of 2 minutes during the second question, he was fighting to get his fair time. She said 'don't worry, we're watching it', but he never got that time back. Romney had to fight for fair time in both debates, and ended up down 4 minutes the first one and 3 minutes the second one.
Also, it was very uncool of Obama to keep interrupting Romney during his 2-minute segments.
Uncool to interrupt Romney? You are kidding right? Lmao
When one candidate has 2 minutes to respond, it is very rude to interrupt.
That's the WHOLE POINT OF A FORMAL DEBATE. Equal speaking time, rules, respect.
Just curious, I might have missed it, but did you get equally upset and express it on these forums when Romney interrupted Obama so many times in the first debate?
I don't think people expect these debates to be run like high school debate contests. I don't recall ever seeing a debate where the candidates were strictly held to their time limits. Moderators have always used some discretion.
Are you kidding? The first debate, Romney was having to fight even more for equal time.
What you think of as 'interruption' was Romney trying to take control of his allotted time-spaces. Clearly, it didn't work, because Obama spoke for 4 minutes more.
7 minutes out of roughly 180.....that's less than 5 percent..
Not sure that's even statistically relevant..
You mad, bro?
Ok, let's simplify this Cody.
What's the problem with this scenario?
"John, Bob, I'm going to give you each two minutes to make an opening statement, then two minutes to reply to your opponent"
John - 2 minutes
Bob - 2 minutes
John - 2 minutes
"Ok, thank you for watching!"
It is significant, because 2 minutes is equal to an entire answer to a question. 4 minutes is equal to two questions.
That's the point of a structured debate. Person A, then Person B. Person B, then Person A.
Like I said, whatever. Clearly you don't care about fair.
You hate context don't you?
How on Earth do you limit yourself strictly to 2 minutes at a time. ESPECIALLY when one party doesn't understand "stop talking, you're time is up".
Or, to simplify for it for...
Say Google maps told you it would take 28 minutes to reach your destination...do you get mad at Google if it takes you 29?
He would say it isn't fair and Google is obviously biased. Probably blame them for losing a minute.
No, because Google maps isn't a structured debate.
Look at the first debate. The moderator tried to cut Obama off for going over time, and Obama spoke over him, gaining a couple extra minutes.
In the same debate, the moderator gave time to O, then R, then O, and tried to keep R from having his second block. Romney spoke over him to get his block.
In this debate, the moderator skipped a block for Romney, and he didn't go over her(he tried, but she was more forceful).
Not the same thing as Google maps.
Oh, are you saying Cody's simple story problem doesn't provide a realistic basis for comparison?
PP, it doesn't work because the premise isn't the same.
I know you like to call my examples simple story problems, but I use the same premise... the same framework, so that examples are transferable. Of course, you wouldn't care about logic, would you?
I'd say "haha" but that would be rude and unprofessional.
It is the same thing. You wouldn't be mad at Google for not giving you the exact time you were promised.
On the Mass. job creation issue:
Technically, both claims aren't exactly true from what I have found. While both conclusions are correct, it assumes that the governor has the power to influence the economy in the state. That has been questioned.
On his tax plan, I can't say it will work until he gives out all of the numbers. If anything, I doubt we get tax reform either way, but I'll let you throw some math my way just for fun.
Lol, no. Not the same thing. One is an estimate of how long something will take to do.
The other is a fixed-time format, overseen by a human being, with decision making skills, in charge of keeping the time straight.
It's not just that Obama went over his time. It's that the moderator GAVE MORE SPEAKING BLOCKS to Obama. But that's not bias, is it?
I did throw math your way. Cut the top rate down by 20%(35 to 28).
Then, limit deductions to 25k.
So, someone making a million will pay 28% on a MINIMUM of $975,000. That's $273,000.
273K out of one million is 27.3% taxes, which is already MORE than that person would pay now, on average.
So there you have it. Math proves that it's a viable plan.
In both debates, the moderator tried to give MORE speaking blocks to Obama than to Romney.
In the first debate, Romney just went over the moderator. That was to get his ALLOTTED time. Obama responded by taking 2-3 minutes extra time, during his own speaking block.
In the second debate, the moderator SKIPPED one of Romney's blocks. She gave Obama an extra block.
That is very poor moderation.
Put it this way though, since you don't think it matters. In a basketball game, you have one team that wins 100-98. How much difference would 5% make?
An apples-to-apples comparison would be to say...
In a football game, there are 60 minutes.
An even split is 30-30
An extra 5 percent is 1.5 minutes
So the time of possession spread would be...
Not much difference at all.
That would be to say that each team is supposed to get the same time, but the refs give more time to the other team.
It's not a huge difference, but it's clear bias in a structured debate.
It would be more like the referees giving the ball back to a team after they scored for another drive.
He interrupted him because he was lying! I know I wouldn't be able to sit still with someone lying about me....Romney crawled all over him in the first debate, Obama remained quite and calm and presidential, it did not work...He had to call him out on his BS
Listen, both candidates lied about each other.
It is NOT proper to interrupt during allotted time.
If you don't agree, then why have a debate in the first place? That's the whole point of the debate.
Jaxson, I understand that you are saying they should have played by the rules..I understand and agree...however, you seem to not want to admit Romney did not play by the rules either, that makes it a wash don't you think. All in all it was a good debate..Oh, I just wanted to point out, Obama pauses when he speaks, I believe it equals out in talk time..
Ok. First question. Both candidates get equal time, neither interrupts.
Second question. Romney starts to talk, and Obama interrupts him. Ding Obama. Romney doesn't get as many speaking segments as Obama. Ding moderator.
Third question. Obama interrupts Romney in the last segment.
Fourth question. No interruptions.
Fifth question. Obama interrupts Romney during Romney's initial 2 minutes.
Sixth question: Nothing
7th or 8th question: Obama interrupts Romney
9th question. Romney does speak while Obama is speaking, referencing Obama's promise to get immigration reform done his first year.
Libya question, it all falls down. Tons of interrupting of Romney's time.
Later on: Again Obama interrupts Romney
I just listed that after going through the transcript.
Romney did interrupt Obama once. Obama interrupted Romney multiple times during 6 segments.
He also broke the rules by speaking straight to Obama...look, I understand rules are rules, but Obama won this debate, not because of the moderator, because of a couple of skewed minutes, because of interruptions...He just won...Romney was aggressive and rude in the first debate..never heard that reported, never heard any libs trying to say it was someone else's fault...
Romney wasn't rude during the first debate. People keep knocking off points from him because he had to talk over people to get his allotted time.
Romney didn't speak directly to Obama until Obama started interrupting him. Look at it again, you want to call Romney rude, when Obama was the one who wouldn't let Romney speak?
Sorry did you watch the first debate? Romney interrupted far more and was celebrated for it, just excuses, debates are rough being too gentle and submissive will mean you lose which is why Romney rode all over Obama last debate don't start crying because he did it back.
Do you want me to annotate the first debate too?
Romney had to fight to get his ALLOCATED SPEAKING BLOCKS.
Where did Romney interrupt in the first debate?
The truth is, Romney didn't interrupt in the first debate. Yes, he fought the moderator for equal time, and he still didn't get it.
Obama interrupted Romney in the first section of the first debate.
Obama interrupted Romney in the second section of the first debate, three times.
Romney interrupted Obama in the third section.
Obama interrupted Romney in a later section, three times.
So, in two debates, Obama interrupted Romney 13 times. Romney interrupted Obama twice.
Sorry, you're wrong.
Nope here is the CNN collection of the interruptions Romney interrupted the moderator at least ten times and Obama 7 that I counted without watching the whole thing.
http://www.aplatestnews.com/usnewsvideo … 2012-10-05
It's the usual the moderator was so mean to poor Romney, old so old.
I admit Romney interrupted the moderator, BECAUSE HE WASN"T GIVING ROMNEY HIS ALLOTED SPEAKING BLOCKS.
It goes like this:
R - O - R - O
O - R - O - R
The moderator tried to do it like this:
R - O - R - O
O - R - O
R - O - R - O
O - R - O
See the difference?
As for Romney interrupting Obama, that's not correct according to the transcript. If you want to debate the fact, I'll look at the video. Remember, it doesn't count as interrupting Obama if Romney is interrupting the moderator. You're probably counting the times Romney jumped in at the end of Obama's segments.
Uhuh so in both debates the moderator was biased and evil uhuh. Sure. Poor Romney. Watch the video he keeps jumping in over Obama and especially over the moderator which you are not supposed to do.
The moderators are chosen by a bipartisan group and agreed to so don't expect me to buy that they are both biased.
Romney was aggressive and won the debate power to him, I never whined about it that is how debates work they are about imposing yourself on the back and forth but it's pathetic that now everyone is complaining about Obama doing just that.
He had to jump over the moderator.
I don't know if he was biased, but he gave unequal time. It's a biased action, at the very least.
Go look at the transcript. He kept trying to change the subject before giving Romney a chance to reply. Instead of O R O R he was going for O R O
Are you denying that? I can prove it.
Obama interrupted the moderator for more time. Romney interrupted him for equal time. Obama came out ahead by 4 minutes. You really think Romney stole time?
Jumping in is not about getting equal time which is largely irrelevant it's about getting your point in at the right time so that a point does not go uncontested, jumping in over a moderator is far worse than jumping in over the other speaker and yet he did it time and time again and as a consequence he got his point in when he wanted where as Obama hardly ever interrupted the moderator (who is supposed to structure the debate.)
As for your OROR example it's actually not the point you believe it to be, the moderator repeatedly pointed out that Romney was holding up the debate when he interrupted and making segments go over time so he would be cutting in to his own segment which is the last one obviously which is his own fault, but as I mentioned it's about making your statement at the right time not talking the most and whoever does that most will win which is why Romney won the first time and Obama won this time.
No, in a structured debate like the first debate, everyone gets equal speaking blocks.
So if Romney starts a segment, Obama ends it.
That's not what the moderator was doing. He went O - R - O - tried to end it. Over and over and over again.
It's very very simple. A structured debate, every debater gets the same number of turns, blocks, rounds, call them what you will.
Romney spoke over the moderator to get his rebuttal time. Then the moderator allowed Obama to rebut that, which means Romney gets ANOTHER rebuttal time.
It's poor moderation, but don't blame the guy who HAD TO FIGHT to get 4 minutes LESS speaking time than Obama.
You are right, the moderator is supposed to structure the debate, but he didn't do it properly. You can't keep trying to give one debater more time to talk on each topic.
U mad, bro?
Is that really what you got out of it?
Those are the facts about the bias of the moderator.
I got a lot more out of the debate, but I'm tired of moderators who don't moderate.
Do you think it's fair for the POTUS to get 4 minutes more speaking time in one debate, and 3 minutes more speaking time in the second? Is that your idea of fair?
Loved Obama tonight. I thought Candy Crowley did great, much better than her male counterpart, Jim Lehrer. By the way, I don't recall anyone judging Lehrer on his appearance. It's a shame that some people still will look at a successful, professional woman and notice her physical imperfections. Shameful.
She played the role of a biased moderator very well.
Obama got 3:10 more speaking time, and she interrupted Romney to fact-check him, which is outside of the scope of an independent moderator.
Seriously, that is a gigantic offense for a moderator.
Fact checking is a giant offense? I wish we had more of it from our corporate-owned media.
From an independent moderator, yes. It is a huge offense.
She is neither in the position to do so, nor capable of independently fact-checking both candidates. The fact that she only did it to Romney shows bias.
Or, do you not understand the definition of bias?
Candy Crowley Embarrasses Herself, Falsely 'Corrects' Romney on Libya
By Matthew Sheffield | October 16, 2012 |
Candy Crowley is continuing to embarrass herself, repeatedly intervening to save a floundering President Obama.
Her most disgraceful act tonight was her incorrect seconding of Obama's statement that he declared the Libya terrorist attacks to be "terror." While Obama did indeed use the word, this is not what he meant by it. Instead, he was simply referring to "acts of terror." There was no mention of Al Qaeda or any of its affiliates with respect to the actual attack on the U.S. embassy in Benghazi.
Crowley bungled the facts in attempting to save Obama from his administration's dreadful bungling of the Libya situation. She owes the American people an apology for inserting herself into the debate in such an inappropriate and embarrassing fashion.
Obama deliberately quoted himself out of context and Crowley not only allowed him to do so, she validated his intentionally narrow reading of the facts as he pleaded for her to come to his rescue.
Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/matthew-sh … z29WYQgcln
Oh, Jaxson, your debate tactics have deteriorated lately. Questioning my knowledge of the word "bias"? Really? That's pretty lame.
As far as being in a position to fact-check, I would say that if a journalist knows a candidate is wrong, they should say so. Now, the question is, did Obama say anything during the debate that Crowley knew was wrong when he said it? If he did and she didn't correct him, then yes, that isn't fair and could indicate bias.
No, PP. The job of an independent moderator is not to try and fact-check, or correct anything that is said. It is to give equal-time to both candidates, and steer the discussion.
It is strictly outside of the scope of a moderator, in ANY debate, to act in that position. Do you want to see the rules for the debate?
Ah, so you don't care about a moderator going outside the scope of her job, and only correcting one candidate?
That's your interpretation.
You asked if I wanted to see the rules and I said no.
And the rules also said the candidates couldn't question the other candidate. And who was the first to break that rule? Romney! Get real!
I disagree, Jaxson. She also upheld Romney's claim about the POTUS's continued effort to blame the attack on the video. I thought she was more than fair.
She contradicted herself on that. She said it took 2 weeks for that idea to come out, but then reaffirmed Romney's statement about it being a reaction to a video.
The problem is, that's not her job at all. Romney was speaking, and she interrupted him to fact-check. It's outrageous. Call it because I"m involved with formal debate, but it's just bias.
I agree 100 percent. If they don't all look like the blonde weather girl then some people will point out every imperfection. Sad state of affairs there.
We should not judge. At least not on personal body imperfections.
I think Obama won. But I'm neither a Obama fan or a Romney fan. Sad we couldn't have better more qualified candidates who would have America on their mind. That and the troubles facing America.
Probably due to the fact that when liberals lost, hands down, we toook responsibility and admitted the truth instead of trying to deflect and throw a tantrum like a two year old child:)
Lehrer was crucified by liberals for being too lenient and most pointed to his age, so pick your permissable liberal criticism - age, sex, physical state, mental state .
I never heard a single person mention his age as a factor in his performance as moderator, and I read a LOT.
I'm still wondering about your fascination with the composition of Candy's ass, especially as it relates to her competence as a moderator.
Are you really a chauvinistic old man using Wonder Woman as a cover?.
Never seen that, but, if you give me proof I will concede that you were right and not throw a tantrum and call you ugly...
I agree. What does her appearance have to do with it?
As for the debate itself, it was pretty close, IMO. I'd give Obama a slight edge. I was disappointed in both men, though. I learned only one thing that I didn't already know: Romney searched for women to be in his cabinet when he was governor. I'm sure that's going to be a huge issue. (insert sarcasm)
I actually got pretty bored and began "grading" the men on their grammar. I heard BO make 2 mistakes, and MR make one. That's how I used to entertain myself at long, boring meetings and conferences when I was a teacher. lol
I'm still voting for Romney, BTW.
CNN poll results coming in:
Who won? 45 BO, 39 MR
Romney better for economy, taxes, deficit.
Obama better on healthcare.
Romney got better leader.
Obama got more likable.
Romney answered questions more directly.
Obama attacked more.
In the focus group of indies, 25% more likely to vote for BO now, 25% more likely to vote for MR now, 48% said neither.
I am amazed they would say Obama attacked more, that sure is not the way I saw it...but you are right, not much new material...there were 8% more republicans in the polls as well
NO, there weren't. There were 33% Rs, 33% Ds, and the rest indies. Those numbers are 8% more Rs than standard polls use. More Rs watched the debate, according to CNN.
More from CNN's scientific poll:
Who best would handle foreign affairs? 49 O, 47 R
Will Obama's plan help the economy? 38 yes, 61 no
Will Romney's plan help the economy? 49 yes, 50 no
That is what he just said about the polls you were quoting on CNN?
Habee, I see what you are saying, more Republicans than a standard poll, yes that is what I thought I said, but it is what I meant...thanks for clarifying:)
They're 8% more R than the other polls they use. For the debate polls, they used an equal number of Rs and Ds.
So 34% independant, did it mention by chance, independants straight out or undecided, as in maybe former Obama supporters or former R's that voted Obama? Or did they clarify at all? I was typing away on you forum here and missed some stuff:D
I'm surprised that Romney won on taxes, given that he won't provide any specifics.
I used to say my vote for Obama would cancel out my husband's vote for Romney, but ever since Romney picked Ryan as his running mate, my Republican hubby has returned to the Obama fold. Tonight, he said Romney looked like a constipated robot. lol
I agree with your surprise on Romney winning the tax issue. And yes, there were some shots where Romney didn't even flinch for what felt like hours.
I liked the part especially when he got that cold stare going after he thought he had Obama on the whole Libya issue.....
Add a cackling laugh and a cat to stroke and he would have been Dr. Evil..
Obama 6 and Romney 4...Obama the clear winner. How can anyone working and just making it vote for Romney after his 47% comment behind closed doors is beyond me! That is an insult to working Americans and shows he's totally out of touch with the middle class!
Romney answered questions more directly? Was I watching a different debate? lol....He avoided answering questions!
Also, about the assault weapons ban Romney signed.
I looked into that a couple of weeks ago, it's pretty bad... nobody seems to know what was actually signed.
It wasn't a new ban. Massachusetts already had a state-level ban, that wasn't set to expire. The problem was one of the definitions in the state ban basically said
"This refers to weapons as define in Federal Statute X". When the federal ban was set to expire, that would cause legal confusion, so they changed it to
"This refers to weapons as defined in Federal Statute X, as of 1994". It didn't take away any gun rights, and actually expanded gun rights.
The bill was endorsed by the NRA at the time.
You sound like a sore louser! Romney lost! Oh well. Obama lost the first debate. Oh well!
Haha, they both won on different points.
I'm talking about the fairness of the debate. If a debate isn't fair, then there is no point in having it.
Well, I think I mentioned a while back, The 2012 Election, was going to be one, Like you have never seen in Your lifetime.
I am 70, and this is a Dandy. Continue on, People.
WE, have ONE more to go.
Sorry, ROmney lost. Nothing worse then a sore winner and a sore loser. The debate was fair. Unfair was breaking the rule by Romney, interupting POTUS to ask him a question.
I guess rules are only for candidates representing the 47%! lol
Meh, fine. Clearly none of Obama's supporters here think that it shows bias that moderators gave more time to Obama in both debates.
Whatever. I support real debates, where independent moderators keep things on equal ground.
It will at least slow Romney's momentum. I don't think this was a knock out blow for either side. It will certainly come down to the rubber match.
I honestly don't think it will change a thing. People were more impressed with Romney on the economy... and that's the most important.
Oh, and Obama ticked off gun enthusiasts all over the nation with his talk about a new ban. That is NOT going to help him.
I give little to no merit to polls. I do think, and I'll say it again, the 47% comment Romney made behind doors will be instrumental in his losing the election.
I don't think we will see much change in the polls...R's and D's were both happy with their guy, stimulated the bases...This will be a dead heat, that's my two cents.
Movingout, I pray your right about that, but it hasn't changed anyone here? And I highly doubt they are the 1% hangin at the hub...I am shocked it hasn't made a much bigger impact...they got a glance of the man behind the curtain and still support him...
Were you using a stopwatch? Was the device calibrated for accuracy? LOL You got to be kidding!
I also disagree that Obama won. Romney messed up on foreign policy, but won economic debate.
To be fair, Romney was both correct and incorrect about the Benghazi thing. It was referred to as an act of terror, in retaliation to the videos.
How did he win the economic debate? By offering more vague ideas and pointing to his "stellar" record as governor in Massachusetts?
47th in job creation
Balanced the budget because the law said so
I'd also like to know more about HOW he managed to turn a profit for the Salt Lake City games. Its not a secret that the IOC is fairly corrupt.
Like Obama said, he wants us to accept a very "sketchy deal."
Lol, you guys ask for specifics, and when they are given, you ignore them.
No hope, you're not being honest with yourselves.
Romney answered, AGAIN, how he could specifically reduce tax rates and keep it revenue neutral.
No he didn't...
He gave some vague response about "$25,000 in the bucket" or some malarkey like that....
And that is a SPECIFIC answer to how he could lower rates and limit deductions. It would work too.
If someone makes $1 million, and has to pay 28% on at least $975,000 of that, what would their effective tax rate be?
You believe anything he says right?
Anyway, focus here....
$25,000 was a random number, not exactly a plan.
It demonstrates the principle.
So, answer the question. Would it work?
(If you believe in math, you basically have to say yes)
So, when someone asks 'How could you do that?', why is not explaining one method not a legitimate answer?
47th is dishonest.
He took the state from 50th his first year, to 28th his last year. That's an improvement, isn't it?
Balanced the budget, as required by law. Yet, the previous administration was running a HUGE deficit.
Cut spending for schools, but improved test scores.
He won that part by showing that Obama has done nothing but fail and break promises.
Less people employed now than when Obama took office. Nowhere near where he said we would be. Instead of cutting deficits in half, he added over $5 trillion to our debt. Wages down, healthcare costs up(another broken promise).
People are smart... Obama's policies aren't working.
Speaking of dishonesty wages have been down for many years (both parties), and health care costs have been rising for the same years.
It's not a partisan thing. When we get two sides of the same corporate coin to choose from in an election, it's not surprising we would get these issues.
To blame stagnant wages and rising medical costs on Obama, ESPECIALLY when he inherited a financial recession (which economists point out are worse than normal recessions) is just an elementary confusion of correlation with causation.
If you have a president promise things, then he can't deliver, why should he get a free ride because it was out of his control?
Jaxson, He did tell his plans to give all thesetax breaks, get rid of estate taxes,etc.etc....it just all the same things R's do, and it does not work...when you do things correctly, it takes time to see the results..have you ever got stuck in a bad financial situation personally, how long did it take you to dig out, how much did you have to cut back on luxuries...I don't understand R's...it's a proven fact that D's create more jobs, they try to help all of Americans, they try to find ways to keep SS and medicaid afloat...the bottom line to me is that D's fight for the little guys....Now if you are a big stock market guy and have a bunch of money off shore I understand why you like Romney...And I can not fathom why any woman would vote for R/R...they are messing with women's rights...I will never understand...I am sure you will never understand why I feel the way I do..a wash...
Because some women are totally against abortion.
habee, I am one of those women, but it is not place to tell others what to do, that's wrong, it's unconstitutional....you and I both have a lot of kids, suppose they controlled how many children were allowed to be born(like China) what would you think of that? I believe in liberty and justice for all, even if my personal values are strictly Christian.
I wasn't including myself there. I think early abortion should be legal. A lot of women I know are totally against abortion and think it shouldn't be legal.
Sorry Habbe, I misinterprted your comment...can I ask, why do you like Romney? Are you conservative or an independant or center leans right? I am center leans left, but have always voted Dem.
I'm a fiscal conservative, but socially, I'm fairly liberal. The economy and deficit are the 2 top issues with me in this election, and I think Romney will be better for both. I don't always vote R. I have voted mostly R, but I've also voted for Ds and indies. My hubby is much further to the right than I am, which leads to some interesting "discussions." lol
My best friend, BTW, is a liberal D, and we often discuss politics. We never get angry about it, however. I'll never understand why people with opposing views can't just respect each other's opinions and discuss/debate without getting angry. We have some extreme partisans from both sides here on HP, and unfortunately, that's largely mirrored in the general population. I simply can't understand any thinking, intelligent, honest person believing that his or her "team" is always right and the opposing "team" is always wrong. I actually agree with Obama on some issues, but like I said, it's all about the economy and the deficit/debt for me now.
I'm not implying that all HP posters are raving partisans. I enjoy discussing politics with several here, including Mighty Mom, Pretty Panther, Jaxson, American View, Josak, you, and a few others.
Undecided voters in FOX focus group:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/ … omney.html
Romney is going to win. I know what the CNN poll said, but when you consider
Obama's record on the economy, and broken promises related to it.
Obama now supporting assault weapon ban.
I think those two things are going to hit him HARD.
I also hope Romney hits Obama again on Benghazi, with better wording, in the next debate. He didn't even bring up the prior attacks, or requests for extra security.
And Obama never brought up the fact that the GOP wanted to cut funds for security.....
Wrong. The proposed cuts weren't specifically outlined for security, so that's not true.
“Despite your own private-sector experience, as you know, Massachusetts ranked only 47th in job creation during your tenure as governor.”
The Romney campaign doesn’t challenge the statistic.....
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/ … ina-trinko
Here's the scoop from CNN:
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/20 … in-debate/
Romney got an 18-point advantage on the economy.
Oh yes, one other thing. When Romney brought up Fast and Furious, Obama said "Candy", and Candy interrupted Romney to change the subject.
But, that couldn't be bias, could it? To make sure someone doesn't claim he was going off topic, the question was posed to Obama 'What has your administration done to keep AK47s out of the hands of criminals", and Fast and Furious was a program that put them INTO the hands of criminals.
So yeah, there's that good moderating again.
Again, you're wrong...
Romney starting rambling about something that wasn't part of the question he was asked.
He was then stopped.
I PUT THAT IN MY POST! THE QUESTION WAS:
"President Obama, during the Democratic National Convention in 2008, you stated you wanted to keep AK-47s out of the hands of criminals. What has your administration done or plan to do to limit the availability of assault weapons?"
How is a program that put assault weapons into the hands of criminals not related to the question about keeping assault weapons out of the hands of criminals?!!??!??!??!?!??!?!?!??!??!?!?!?!??!
Do you REALLY want to claim it is off-topic?
I didn't like that. Obama didn't want to answer the question, so he called on Candy to rescue him.
As I've said before habee, I really respect you
Thank you, Jax. The feeling is mutual! (Isn't that a line from Young Frankenstein?)
Jaxson, that was Obama following your precious rules!!!
Is it not the rule that they are not suppose to speak to one another directly? He said continue sir, or something like that, he was calling for Candy to call him out on breaking the rule...as he did continually
No, that wasn't what was happening there.
Romney did talk directly to Obama earlier, after Obama kept interrupting him. I thought it was clever, Obama kept interrupting, so Romney called him out on his lie about permits. Obama tried to backpedal, but the simple answer is that he cut permits.
Hey, pals - I just had a sobering thought. What are we going to talk about after the election hoopla is over??
I won't be talking about much
Hopefully I'll be bragging about how many dresses my wife is selling. She's recouped over 25% of our start-up costs in one week!
So can anyone answer this question? Is it, or is it not the pervue of the Department of Energy to set gas prices???
Lol, I was frustrated by that.
Presidential candidates would fail formal debate classes!
No, the Department of Energy does not set gas prices. Gasoline/oil is a commodity, and world-wide supply and demand determines the price. The difference in gasoline prices from country to country is primarily because of the amount of taxes that are added to the price of gasoline. The president has no control over gasoline prices, and it's ridiculous that this topic even gets brought up in a debate.
Fair enough assuming that is what his tax plan looks like.
The top 1 percent would NEVER go for that
I'm proud of you. Honestly. I've tried to explain that before, but nobody listened.
Don't you think they would go for something that keeps effective rates stable?
Also, if you think that, then what point is there giving Obama credit for wanting to raise taxes on the top 2%? Will they go for that?
Eh, slightly different though. What Obama is proposing is simply letting a temporary tax cut expire for the top 1-2, 5 percent?
Its only a tax increase in technical terms. And yes, I feel the same way when people say its a tax increase for middle class Americans if they have their cuts expire. Its a rollback more than anything.
Listen, it doesn't matter. You believe that it was unfair for Romney to fight for the right to speak for 4 minutes less than Obama... that says it all.
It's very simple when you interrupt the moderator you cost the whole debate time because their is a pause then the moderator has to explain etc. etc. and things go above time but not all that time is Romney's because his interruption takes time from the moderator too so since Romney was supposed to speak last he gt less time through his own fault but got his comments in when he wanted them. Very simple.
I can't believe you guys are still arguing this point about debate time. I went to bed and slept for 7 hours! lol
Yes, Romney WAS supposed to speak last in the first segment, since Obama spoke first.
But the moderator kept trying, 3 times I believe, to let Obama get the last word in.
Romney didn't get less time through his own fault, that's just ridiculous. He had to speak over the moderator to get THE SAME NUMBER OF SPEAKING BLOCKS. How does that make it his fault?
LOL, if only Mitt Romney had that guy's charisma.
The women in binders part didn't bother me. It was the idea that women need more flexibility to be home with the family. Don't men need that, too?
all the women i put in my binders must have flexibility
Yep, they'd have to be pretty darn flexible to fit into a binder...maybe even be contortionists. lol
I don't understand the hoopla about the comment on binders.
I saw this tweet this morning and almost choked because frankly, it never crossed my mind when it was said:
"#Romney said a child raised by a single parent had a poor chance of life success. Ironically, he was sharing the stage with one! #debate"
In early Obama White House, female staffers felt frozen out
Friction about the roles of women in the Obama White House grew so intense during the first two years of the president’s tenure that he was forced to take steps to reassure senior women on his staff that he valued their presence and their input.
At a dinner in November 2009, several senior female aides complained directly to the president that men enjoyed greater access to him and often muscled them out of key policy discussions.
“I remember once I told Valerie that, I said if it weren’t for the president, this place would be in court for a hostile workplace,” Dunn is heard telling Suskind. “Because it actually fit all of the classic legal requirements for a genuinely hostile workplace to women.”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/ … story.html
Barack Obama's White House Pays Women 18 Percent Less Than Men
BY: KENRIC WARD
Amid the Republicans' alleged "war on women," female employees in the Obama White House earn considerably less than their male colleagues, records show.
According to the 2011 report compiled by the White House, female employees earned a median annual salary of $60,000, which was about 18 percent less than the median salary for male employees ($71,000).
http://www.sunshinestatenews.com/blog/b … t-less-men
Give me stats/links on this under past Republican administrations...
(Just teasing, promise!)
Can you find instances of one candidate hypocritically claiming their opponents are conducting a "war on women"?
It would not be an issue if there were not false claims made by an administration that has nothing to offer except criticism of their challenger. The whole glass house analogy and all!
BTW: If you look at both the writing of Cagsil and compare it to me, I believe you will see that in no way could we possibly be the same entity. Even though we agree on many subjects and I have the utmost respect for him, he is not me....
Besides, since we both posted to many of the same threads, HP would have banned us for TOS violations. And since, as far as I know, Cags is not admitted to participate in the forums, if we were the same person, HP would bring the hammer down hard!
WAR ON WOMEN?!?!?
GOOD GOD, MAN!!!
HE WANTS TO HOLE PUNCH THEM AND INSERT THEM INTO BINDERS!
HAVE YOU NO FEMALE RELATIVES!?!!?!?
WHERE IS YOUR DECENCY!?!!?
Nice of our president to elevate his daughters to the status of "senior staff members" in order to coerce the taxpayer to pay for their vacation! Sounds slightly fraudulent and bordering on criminal.
From the link:
“This junket wasted tax dollars and the resources of our overextended military. No wonder we had to sue to pry loose this information.”
Judicial Watch Obtains Documents Detailing the Cost to Taxpayers for Michelle Obama’s Family Trip to Africa
Charges for the Aircraft and Crew Alone Amount to $424,142
Washington, DC — October 4, 2011
Judicial Watch, the organization that investigates and fights government corruption, announced today that it has obtained mission expense records and passenger manifests from the United States Air Force related to the June 21-27, 2011, trip taken by First Lady Michelle Obama, her family and her staff to South Africa and Botswana. Judicial Watch obtained the documents pursuant to an August 19, 2011, Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit (Judicial Watch v. U.S. Air Force (No. 11-1496)). Judicial Watch is investigating the purpose and itinerary of the trip as well as a breakdown of the costs to taxpayers.
On June 28, 2011, Judicial Watch filed a FOIA request seeking the mission taskings, transportation records, and passenger manifests for Michelle Obama’s Africa trip. Documents were only provided after Judicial Watch filed suit:
According to U.S. Department of Defense’s published hourly rates for the C-32A aircraft used for the trip, Judicial Watch calculated the total cost to American taxpayers was $424,142 for use of the aircraft (34.8 flight hours x $12,188 per hour). (The C-32 is a specially configured military version of the Boeing 757.) Other expenses – meals (off the plane), transportation, security, various services, etc. – have yet to be disclosed.
The passenger manifests confirm the presence of Obama’s daughter’s, Malia and Sasha on the trip. The two girls are listed as “Senior Staff.” The manifests also list Mrs. Obama’s mother, Marian Robinson, and niece and nephew, Leslie and Avery Robinson, as well Mrs. Obama’s makeup and hairstylist (Carl Ray and Johnny Wright).
The expense records also show $928.44 was spent for “bulk food” purchases on flight. Overall, during the trip, 192 meals were served for the 21 passengers on board.
The professed purpose of Michelle Obama’s trip to South Africa and Botswana was to encourage young people living in the two growing democracies to become involved in national affairs; and during her scheduled stops in Pretoria and Cape Town, South Africa and in Gaborone, the capital of Botswana, the First Lady used the opportunity to speak on education, health and wellness issues.The trip also included such tourist events as visits to historical landmarks and museums, plus a nonworking chance to send time with Nelson Mandela, a meeting that Mrs. Obama described as “surreal.” The trip ended with a private family safari at a South African game reserve before the group returned to Washington on June 27.“This trip was as much an opportunity for the Obama family to go on a safari as it was a trip to conduct government business,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton.
http://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room … to-africa/
OK Lets see:
CBS News: http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-204_162-708366.html
MSNBC: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7918891/ns/ … H7_K2_A8Yk
124 million dollar vacation (Pay us back it says!) http://www.politicususa.com/gop-owes-ta … ravel.html
Bush daughters volunteer during vacation (in S Africa) http://www.boston.com/news/world/africa … ?page=full
Bush daughters join Flotus in S Africa: http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2005 … -cape-town
History of FLOTUS trips to S Africa http://communities.washingtontimes.com/ … bush-twin/
So much for facts
I see no problem with any first lady representing the nation overseas, Hillary also took a worldwide trip with Chelsea. The problem is making fraudulent statements. Ask anyone on social security the consequences of committing fraud on a government document.
The taxpayer is obligated to cover travel expenses for the Potus, Boehner was out of line. Bush actually worked while in Crawford, but hey, if you can convince enough people to initiate an investigation, I am all for it.
I do not have time at the moment to look through the rest of the links I want to post my reply before my PC times out, I am interested and will read through the rest in a little while. Thanks for providing some stuff for me to consider.
Did Hilary make a "fraudulent statement?" This topic is a complete waste of time. Why are we making such a big deal about the terrorist attack tragedy in Benghazi when we lost thousands in Iraq and Afghanistan. All the GOP is doing is playing political "gotcha." Same with the issue of the U.S. agent killed on the border. It's not as if there's a shortage of guns in Mexico made in good old USA and shipped to the drug gangs in Mexico so that our supply of drugs won't be interrupted. What difference does it make which gun made in USA killed the agent?
My great grandfather (rest his soul), used to sit me down and tell me...
.."If there are only 2 things you remember to do as a man, it's keep your dog on the roof of your car and your women in a binder"
I miss him so
I once met an environmentally conscious pimp who, in order to limit waste, kept his staple of prostitutes in a duo-(pou)-tang
by Holle Abee 6 years ago
With the latest polls of some swing states, some political "experts" are predicting a possible "mess" like we had in 2000. Which do you think is the most likely outcome? And for those of you on the FAR right or FAR left, tell us what you THINK will happen - not what you WANT to...
by Grace Marguerite Williams 4 years ago
they saw President Barack Obama as the president of promise and reformation? During President Obama's administration, unemployment and national debt is the HIGHEST it has been. More and more civil liberties are being eroded. Despite Obama's dismal and horrific record, Americans...
by JaxsonRaine 5 years ago
Lots of people gave me flack for saying the debate was very poorly moderated. I say Candy was very biased, but let's just focus on one example. I want someone who loves Obama to explain why this wasn't an example of bias.You can watch it here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q3ujxXuNgGsAn audience...
by Holle Abee 5 years ago
Finally - something both camps agree on. Apparently, no one bothered to tell Candy Crowley about the agreement made between Obama, Romney, and the debate commission.http://thepage.time.com/2012/10/14/mode … he-debate/
by KevinC9998 5 years ago
Do you think Mitt Romney was disrespectful to the President during the debate?
by Michele Travis 5 years ago
Is there going to be a civil war if Obama Wins?Texas Judge Tom Head, has told us that there is going to be a civil war if Obama wins the election. He actually was interviewed and wanted to warn people that a civil war would happen if Obama won.
Copyright © 2018 HubPages Inc. and respective owners. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc. HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|