US Town Hall Debate |OT| When is the election? What are the names of the candidates?

Status
Not open for further replies.
tumblr_mc0vvj5VAN1rj8amio1_500.jpg

lacey is the true winner of these last two presidential elections

good lord
 
If Romney wants to drive home a talking point about women not being paid equally, he needs to look no further than the Obama Whitehouse:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/disclosures/annual-records/2011

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/war...-found-to-pay-women-less-on-average-than-men/


the point is equal pay for same job... that report does not detail jobs, just salaries so no conclusion can be reached as the linked story does (unless I am missing a detail)
 
I kind of agree with this yahoo article, if Obama had done this well in the first debate this election would probably be fucking over. I still think he's re-elected. But, I don't think there's any chance winning this debate or the next will have as big of an effect as Romney winning the first did. Which sucks pretty bad.

I'll still enjoy watching Fox news all day November 7th for the melt downs.

Ugh. I can't really disagree too much but I can't stand Jeff Greenfield.

In Yahoo's chat he mentioned that Obama was lucky there hadn't been a question about Simpson-Bowles yet. Gee, maybe because it's a town hall debate, and no one outside the typical Washington circle-jerk party scene gives a flying fuck about Simpson-Bowles?
 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=athcyCTnTTs


Candy admits Romney was right on the libya moment.

I'm confused :(.

I thought she was clear during the debate: Obama was right that he used the word terror, Romney was right that the Obama campaign blamed the attack on the video for days. Dunno why conservatives are trying to spin this. The problem is that Romney made a direct charge that was false. He wasn't talking about the video, he was talking about Obama allegedly not calling it an act of terror. End of story.
 
Ugh. I can't really disagree too much but I can't stand Jeff Greenfield.

In Yahoo's chat he mentioned that Obama was lucky there hadn't been a question about Simpson-Bowles yet. Gee, maybe because it's a town hall debate, and no one outside the typical Washington circle-jerk party scene gives a flying fuck about Simpson-Bowles?

Yeah, I don't know the guy. Just saw the article and agreed with his main point. I can't imagine how fucked Romney's campaign would be right now had Obama been in the game the first debate.
 
I thought she was clear during the debate: Obama was right that he used the word terror, Romney was right that the Obama campaign blamed the attack on the video for days. Dunno why conservatives are trying to spin this. The problem is that Romney made a direct charge that was false. He wasn't talking about the video, he was talking about Obama allegedly not calling it an act of terror. End of story.

Reached too far. Obama had the higher ground. Something something.
 
Great debate but it still wasn't the big win Obama needed to win in November. I hold firm that Romney will be elected United States President, much to my chagrin.
Nothing to your chagrin. It ain't happening that way.

I thought she was clear during the debate: Obama was right that he used the word terror, Romney was right that the Obama campaign blamed the attack on the video for days. Dunno why conservatives are trying to spin this. The problem is that Romney made a direct charge that was false. He wasn't talking about the video, he was talking about Obama allegedly not calling it an act of terror. End of story.
Yep. Once again the conservative media wants us to look past the obvious, and Mitt's words, and intent, and imagine something else. It was a weak attack, launched from a position of weakness, and countered effectively and brutally. You take your losses and move on.

Its funny too, because growing up I always associated Conservatives with brutal unfriendly realities and realpolitik. You have to understand your enemy's strengths in real terms, and your own weaknesses, if you seek to prevail. None of this "being mean" shit.

Elections have repercussions, no matter what the "they are all the same" brigade thinks. And if your enemy slips up, you don't give him your hand, you kick him in the face until he stops moving. To move your policies forward you first have to win.
 
I also don't understand this whole weird GOP obsession on this issue. The whitehouse denounced the attack and started investigating it. They didn't publicly disclose what they were finding during their investigation.

Uh . . . does the GOP want the white house to disclose secrets of national security investigations?!?! If you are honing in on a particular enemy group do you want to tell them that you are honing in on them so they can pack up & leave? WTF?

Is that what you would do Mitt? Would you telegraph your every move to the enemy? Brilliant!
Well, they did call a hearing to broadcast the fact that the CIA was operating there over CNN despite the CIA's objections.
 
Great debate but it still wasn't the big win Obama needed to win in November. I hold firm that Romney will be elected United States President, much to my chagrin.



That's the thought of Americans all over, though.

Do you know how the electoral college works? The only thing Romney had a decent shot at was the popular vote, but did you see the poll results from independents. Obama crushed it with them.Romney's chances are basicaly pinned to a severe stock market crash or some devastating terrorist attack.
 
Best part of the debate was definitely when Obama coldstared Romney and told him that nobody in his administration was using the Libya attacks for political gain. You could tell he was pissed even with the insinuation.

I just finished watching and you can tell that effected his tone for the rest of the debate. The look he gave Romney was cold as fuck.
 
There is no practical difference. The position on what was behind the attack was different, though.

So when you say "they didn't treat it like a terrorist attack," you mean "they didn't tell you it was a terrorist attack."

Can you really conceive of no situation in which not telling people it was a terrorist attack right away would be the right choice? Say, in the event of an attack on a CIA installation.
 
Do you know how the electoral college works? The only thing Romney had a decent shot at was the popular vote, but did you see the poll results from independents. Obama crushed it with them.Romney's chances are basicaly pinned to a severe stock market crash or some devastating terrorist attack.

Now now now.

Obama could still do the following:

1. Cheat on his wife with a another black woman.
2. Get caught making out with man. Any race will do.
3. Murder an attractive white woman between infant age to mid 40s, intentionally or otherwise. Preferably, while driving drunk listening "The Motto."
4. Wear nothing but boxer briefs outside.
5. Use the phrase "my mufucken right hand man, ya dig" when describing the gentlemen debating Paul Ryan last week.
6. Say something about how we'll have to have a drastic switch in the entirety of our private job sector due to the change to the global economy and it will never be like it was before Bush was in office seriously guys this shits just not gonna work.
7. Adopting an abused pit bull.
8. Saying "the fuck are you talking about" when debating Mitt Romney next week.
9. Going vegan.
10. Get caught having an account under one of the more unscrupulous sections of reddit.
11. Discuss that America is actually digging it's own hole into the ground when it comes to the middle east due to our support for Saudi Arabia and Israel.
12. Drinking a 40oz on camera.

But, as long as none of the above happens, we should be straight.

Should.
 
3 since world war II. 10 overall. There is a natural advantage to the incumbent and the times it takes a much more charasmastic person than Romney to pull it off.

Yeah the Australian experience has been that it's very difficult to topple a first term government. It has happened about twice.
 
So when you say "they didn't treat it like a terrorist attack," you mean "they didn't tell you it was a terrorist attack."

Can you really conceive of no situation in which not telling people it was a terrorist attack right away would be the right choice? Say, in the event of an attack on a CIA installation.
I am not a Romney supporter here. I'm just telling it like it is.

It was labeled as an attack related to the protests to start out. That is the point that Romney was trying to make. Whether or not that matters is different, but it's clear the administration didn't have this stance from the get go.
 
At least Romney didn't talk about binders full of African Americans during the discussion on gun control.
 
It looks like the general consensus is that Obama rarely won. I don't expect any spike for Obama. If anything, this is still going to be close.

The PPP post debate snap poll in Colorado showed independents said Obama won the debate by 22% (yet Obama only won the complete poll by 4%). All tonight shows is that Republicans won't admit when their guy lost. That kind of separation among independents is no small thing
 
Once you're president you see so much that we don't see from this side. That's why Romney lost tonight and why he's not fit. He has no idea whats REALLY going on
 
Anyone from watch-GAF know what the pres is sportin ? Looks pimp.

Looks like his Jorge Gray Chronograph that was a birthday gift given to him by his secret service agents, bought from their employee store. It has a secret service seal on it that is exclusive to the employee store. You can find the same watch sans the seal at various online stores.
 
Holy shit I just caught the rerun of that Fox News focus group of all old white people, many of whom supposedly voted for Obama in 08.. Of course they think Romney looked more presidential in this debate and are now swayed to vote for Romney unanimously.

Also, is the Fox News crowd seriously rallying behind this accusation of Obama waiting until he has all the facts on Libya to speak about it instead of having some boorish, hawkish,knee jerk reaction?
 
As ThisWreckage thinks, the world turns.

We'll see about that.

There's nothing to see about. Obama has not been some sort of raging success. He's been a disappointment, at best. I have no problem admitting that and many people that voted him will tell you that he didn't live up to the fervor and hype that surrounded him. That's my issue. I don't feel like either one of these candidates are good for this country. Am I supposed to buy into the whole notion of, "Well, Obama wasn't perfect and his first four years was a trial run. Wait and see what he can do if given another chance."
 
It's going to be much closer than most people think. This debate didn't do anything but reaffirm my belief that we have two halves of a whole idiot running for president.

Based on? As for the second part mind explaining the false equivalency you set up?
He's been a disappointment, at best

Healthcare, Iraq, OBL, gay rights have all been a net positive so no. If you expected him to wave a magic fairy wand than sure you can be disappointed. There are legitimate issues to worry about like prisoner rights which he's been a huge disappointment on, but outside of that he's stuck to exactly what he said he would do.
 
Does it really matter if it was labeled terrorist attack or not? This is such a non-issue anyway and it shows how well Obama did that this is all Fox news can talk bout. Obama gettin loud and pissed and callin Mitt offensive was a great moment btw
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom