Official Debate Thread Round III

  • Thread starter Thread starter Guns Guns Guns
  • Start date Start date
Jarod said:
good because currently the President has the slight edge!
Click to expand...

The trend is toward Romney at the moment. I agree it is good, but the movement in the polls today was in Romney's direction. I didn't see anything at all tonight that will change that trend. Romney didn't let them draw him into something foolish and was playing a defense that worked for the Lutz focus group and for many.

If what I saw is right, I'm very happy with the result of tonight's debate.
 
Damocles said:
The trend is toward Romney at the moment. I agree it is good, but the movement in the polls today was in Romney's direction. I didn't see anything at all tonight that will change that trend. Romney didn't let them draw him into something foolish and was playing a defense that worked for the Lutz focus group and for many.

If what I saw is right, I'm very happy with the result of tonight's debate.
Click to expand...
we will see
 
Dixie said:
Funny how liberals are still up and in full spin cycle mode over a boring debate.

You fuckwits were going to scream Obama won even if they had brought out wheelbarrows to carry chunks of Obama ass from the stage. The man literally lost 3 debates in a row, and Mitt didn't even break a sweat.
Click to expand...


One thing about being in a tiny minority, Dix, your voice, no matter how shrill, no matter how misguided, will always be heard.
 
I thought Romney looked weak. He pretty much forfeited and was just hoping not to lose too badly. If only he listened to the dumbass conservatives on this board...
 
PostmodernProphet said:
???....that was Obama's comment, not Romney's......
Click to expand...

He was quoting Romney. And trying to blame Obama for this was just stupid because as Politifact notes "...each of the final four years under George W. Bush saw lower levels of active ships than any of the three years under Obama. The number of surface warships also bottomed out in 2005 under Bush, later rising by about 10 percent under Obama."

"During the Jan. 16, 2012, Republican presidential debate in Myrtle Beach, S.C., former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney took aim at President Barack Obama’s support for the U.S. military.


"The most extraordinary thing that's happened with this military authorization is the president is planning on cutting $1 trillion out of military spending," Romney said. "Our Navy is smaller than it's been since 1917. Our Air Force is smaller and older than any time since 1947. We are cutting our number of troops. We are not giving the veterans the care they deserve. We simply cannot continue to cut our Department of Defense budget if we are going to remain the hope of the Earth. And I will fight to make sure America retains military superiority."

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...omney-says-us-navy-smallest-1917-air-force-s/
 
TheRocketSurgeon said:
I thought Romney looked weak. He pretty much forfeited and was just hoping not to lose too badly. If only he listened to the dumbass conservatives on this board...
Click to expand...

Your problem, like MANY liberals is, you view the contestants in the debate as having to accomplish the same objectives to "win" and that is not an accurate analysis of how this works. Obama needed to destroy Romney, he didn't. Romney needed to look presidential and stay away above the fray, he did. Obama needed to defend his record, he couldn't. Romney needed to appear in command of the issues, he did. What it would take to influence independent voters was different for each candidate, not the same. That is where you morons are making your big mistake in your analysis of this debate. Romney won by a bunch, Obama failed to do what he needed to accomplish, which is becoming quite par for the course for Obama.
 
France TV, Al Jazeera TV, HK TV, BBC TV all agree that Obama won the debate. The fact that it was a huge waste of time and resources was picked up by some and the BBC smirked that after all the campaign has been running for two years. (Actually, as we know it is double that time).

These traitors to the USA need to answer to America for working against the sovereign government to destabilise it and cause harm to America's home and foreign relations:

Republican Reps. Eric Cantor (Va.), Kevin McCarthy (Calif.), Paul Ryan (Wis.), Pete Sessions (Texas), Jeb Hensarling (Texas), Pete Hoekstra (Mich.) and Dan Lungren (Calif.), along with Republican Sens. Jim DeMint (S.C.), Jon Kyl (Ariz.), Tom Coburn (Okla.), John Ensign (Nev.) and Bob Corker (Tenn.). The non-lawmakers present included Newt Gingrich, several years removed from his presidential campaign, and Frank Luntz, the long-time Republican wordsmith. Notably absent were Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio)

With any luck the ill-thought out dribblings of Romney will discredit his church, his party (as it is now - not as it might have been) and his brain dead, ear biting followers.
 
Dixie said:
Your problem, like MANY liberals is, you view the contestants in the debate as having to accomplish the same objectives to "win" and that is not an accurate analysis of how this works. Obama needed to destroy Romney, he didn't. Romney needed to look presidential and stay away above the fray, he did. Obama needed to defend his record, he couldn't. Romney needed to appear in command of the issues, he did. What it would take to influence independent voters was different for each candidate, not the same. That is where you morons are making your big mistake in your analysis of this debate. Romney won by a bunch, Obama failed to do what he needed to accomplish, which is becoming quite par for the course for Obama.
Click to expand...

Says who? Frank Luntz? The guy's a hack and you have the same problem.

But, I think Romney came off as weak and smelling like a loon a few times, not presidential. His comments on China and Ahmadinejad both were a bit alarming. He just kept his distance from right wing nuts this time and did not make as big a mistake.
 
TheRocketSurgeon said:
Says who? Frank Luntz? The guy's a hack and you have the same problem.

But, I think Romney came off as weak and smelling like a loon a few times, not presidential. His comments on China and Ahmadinejad both were a bit alarming. He just kept his distance from right wing nuts this time and did not make as big a mistake.
Click to expand...

I didn't listen to Frank Luntz or Fox, or anyone else, really. I made that assessment on my own and stand by it. The problem you're having is the same problem many highly-paid Washington elites and poli-wonks are having, don't feel bad. You simply think of the debate like a simple game, where both candidates are competing on the same terms for a win, and that isn't the case. They are competing for a win, that is for certain, but the criteria for a win is different for both candidates. Romney accomplished his criteria better than Obama, who failed to accomplish his. Romney didn't bury Obama, but he didn't have to. Obama looked petulant and snarky, not like a confident leader at all, and it won't play well for him in the overnights. This will all be reflected in the coming days through polling data, but for now, you pinheads blow a fuse proclaiming victory! Because THAT will just make kicking your asses ever more sweet to me!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top