Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 9, 2012 12:35:58 GMT -5
This is more like a roller coaster ride. I suspect the lead will change again, perhaps more than once. However, unless Romney screws up, I will vote for him and that's certainly a change over two weeks ago.
|
|
|
Post by mcnoch on Oct 9, 2012 12:44:28 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Swampy on Oct 9, 2012 13:30:04 GMT -5
We need workers in the West, so bring 'em on!
|
|
|
Post by dontom on Oct 9, 2012 17:08:56 GMT -5
Romney won the debate hands down. So, with only a month left, can Obama turn things around? Sure. It's still going to be close. If anything happens in the last week before the election is what's most important to most of our stupid voters. -Don-
|
|
|
Post by Swampy on Oct 17, 2012 8:44:11 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by boxcar on Oct 17, 2012 10:52:13 GMT -5
“I think the president indicted himself” on the Libya issue, Priebus said. “He point-blank lied on Libya. He never called it a terrorist attack. At the end of the speech in the Rose Garden, he said that ‘Acts of terror won’t shake the nation,’ then he went on seven times and talked about the fact that this thing was from a YouTube video. So he’s not going to get away with this.
|
|
|
Post by boxcar on Oct 17, 2012 11:13:03 GMT -5
CNN moderator Candy Crowley stepped in to aver that Obama had called it a terror attack. That provoked charges of bias from conservatives, who pointed out that Obama had said in a speech from the Rose Garden that “no acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation.” He did not label the specific attack that claimed the lives of Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans a terrorist attack that was perpetrated by al-Qaida type elements, they said.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 17, 2012 14:03:31 GMT -5
I'm very bemused by the fact that everyone is saying that Obama "won" the debate because he was more proactive this time. It sounds to me as if he is being awarded the "win" due to the fact that he decided to participate this time rather than be so lathargic as he was in the 1st debate.
I thought both did well. Romney did no worse than the first time but Obama certainly did much better this time than he did the 1st. Of course, he had no where to go but up. I just get so damned sick and tired of hearing both tell how the other screwed the pooch on this or that. I just wish they would tell us what THEIR positions are, not what their opponent's are.
|
|
|
Post by dontom on Oct 17, 2012 14:21:21 GMT -5
These debates are just so we know who can BS the best. They have no other purpose, IMO.
I did watch the debate and they are both full of BS equally.
But I like Obama's BS better than Romney's BS.
-Don-
|
|
|
Post by boxcar on Oct 17, 2012 15:31:46 GMT -5
I think a contributing factor to the 2nd debate was the bias on part of the moderator. She cut off Romney 28 times and she cut off Obama 9 times. Romney would have scored much better had his replies to Obama’s BS been allowed.
Romney made a mistake when he said the top tax rate was 60 some percent. I believe the figure is closer to 40%. (Any one else have figures on this?)
Obama was wrong when he stated gas production went up on federal property, during his administration. It went down 14%.
|
|
|
Post by boxcar on Oct 17, 2012 15:40:19 GMT -5
Don>>These debates are just so we know who can BS the best.<<
These debates allow those who can listen to understand where the candidates stand on the issues that the general public deems important. Previous to that, Obama and Romney were engaged in slinging mud at each other. No one learns anything in that situation including Obama or Romney.
|
|
|
Post by dontom on Oct 17, 2012 19:57:36 GMT -5
Don>>These debates are just so we know who can BS the best.<< These debates allow those who can listen to understand where the candidates stand on the issues that the general public deems important. Previous to that, Obama and Romney were engaged in slinging mud at each other. No one learns anything in that situation including Obama or Romney. IMO, the debates are a game of who can tell the most undecided voters of what they wish to hear. And what the public wants to hear might not really be what the guy does, but perhaps sometimes for good reasons, IMO. If Obama gets his second term, he doesn't have to worry about satisfying anybody other than himself. But that's fine with me. He already has my vote (will be twice) and I doubt if anything can change it. But here in CA, there's really no doubt that Obama will win the 55 e-votes. This time, it looks like it will be the small states that will make the difference. This election will be a bit too close for my liking. I would like to see Obama win by a landslide. I would like to see Romney even lose Utah to Obama. ;D OTOH, I think we have had many presidents who were a lot worse than Romney could ever be, such as Baby Bush. And we have has MUCH worse than even Baby Bush run, such as that idiot Santorum. If he became president, Tom & I would be leaving this country fast. We would rather be dead than live under the Christian theocracy that Santorum obviously wanted. We would prefer a commie country to that! -Don- SSF, CA
|
|