Presidential debate
- Thread starter Locutus
- Start date
Ron Paul....Bring it on!!!!
[youtube]D0OTZkcpOzc[/youtube]
I would have liked that. I found having a third person in the debate made the 1992 debate more interesting.
These two dorks might pop into the local spa for a spritz together but ol' barry could barely look Mitt in the eye half the time. Then 25% was his car salesman grin and the rest, variations of derision, non-confidence and disdain . He did not do well, nor take it well at all. He may be a robot (with his provided telepromter lines) but alone, he's got the maturity of a teenager . Same goes for nbp-ette mooch.
Just badly owned.
Just badly owned.
Hey look. He has been coddled by the media and his handlers for four years. Even a week ago we were told this election was in the bag for Obama and the GOP was already being mocked that they should give up and try for 2016. Now they are not so sure.
Even MSNBC was saying that if he gets pummeled like this in future debates he is finished. They can only protect him so much.
Obama is pro-muppet while Romney is anti-muppet. Your choice is clear America.
LMAO. Brilliant Cord. Nice find and commentary.
All the news reports have stated the same thing- Also stated that for the past number of debates the incumbent did not do well. Not used to being challenged is one reason they say.
Wait for number 2 and 3.
Bush got the same in 2000
I don't think Obama did as badly as everyone sais he did. He's always had a prickly, acerbic, cerebral personna.. more complex and introspective than Romney's.
Romney projects better on television.. but i can't help but see in him one of those well scrubbed, neatly coiffed, white shirted Mormon youth missionaries that appear on doorsteps now and then. They seem polite, well intentioned, completely convinced of their beliefs.. but you might consider them too simple, naive and credulous to buy into what they are proffering.
This election will be decided on issues, not personalities. And it will be decided on fundamental economic philosophies that are at the crux of the current malaise and crisis.. which the topics debated last night addressed only in the most tangential of ways.
Romney projects better on television.. but i can't help but see in him one of those well scrubbed, neatly coiffed, white shirted Mormon youth missionaries that appear on doorsteps now and then. They seem polite, well intentioned, completely convinced of their beliefs.. but you might consider them too simple, naive and credulous to buy into what they are proffering.
This election will be decided on issues, not personalities. And it will be decided on fundamental economic philosophies that are at the crux of the current malaise and crisis.. which the topics debated last night addressed only in the most tangential of ways.
Last edited:
Anyone who doubts that Obama cannot debate does not remember the Clinton - Obama primaries - the Presidential Debates of 2008 - or is conveniently forgetful - So if they still think that Obama cannot debate they are blowing smoke up their own asses - Now thats gotta hurt.
Obama did well in his first go at the presidential debates in 2008 due to the notion that he could lean heavily on scenarios that were full of high-minded ideals and required no element of actually being able to perform.
He's had almost 4 years now, and his track record simply doesn't allow for that idealistic approach anymore
The outcome of debates.. has in fact, in the elections since 1960, not been a strong indicator of the outcome of the election.
There a much stronger direct relationships with respect to unemployment.. which might work to Romney's advantage.. or to his disadvantage due to ideological allegiance to the chief cause of de-industrialization and the debasement of the American workplace.. through Free Trade and Monetarism (free markets in currency and credit).
Unfortunately Obama has been unable to separate from the same policies.. and is very much in Wall Street's back pocket.. perhaps even more beholden to the Financial Establishment than Romney, in a practical (as opposed to ideological) sense.
Last edited:
And what a financial mess that was left- No bailouts would have meant 20 % plus unemployment- Did anyone think getting out of that was going to be easy well need I say more-
I was for McCain as you know – then that hit – then he had Mrs. I can see Russia from here- Could they have done better.
The House Repubs were held hostage by Tea Party- And the Mantra was no – no and more no.
Obama knew that getting into the game... It's not a reasonable excuse
Many are to blame incl Clinton, Carter, Reagan and Bush... In the end, as mentioned, this wasn't a surprise for Obama
The Dems had control of both Houses for 2 years and he still couldn't pull the trigger
Then financial mess hit in an election year- Did McCain see it coming-
Well aware of his mistakes and I have stated often enough that he should have locked up Pelosi.
Mad? Why would you think that? I thought it was funny. Am I missing something here?
Very true. I think it was the Green Party candidate that made the Dems realize that a 3rd party in Presidential elections aren't that great after all.
I always thought Bush did well in the debates. He performed in the debates with the same performance he used to win the election. George W Bush always came off as an asshole but a confident one, one who was standing up to political elitism with his limited intelligence and the right amount of indignation. Just like the average voter. He was the guy people would have a drink with. That came out in his campaign speeches and during the debates.
Obama won the election in 2008 because of his impassioned public speaking, not because he was a half-asleep rambling policy wonk. He came off as the later during the debate. Just look at every recent presidential election. Every time the more charismatic candidate won.
Obama won the election in 2008 because of his impassioned public speaking, not because he was a half-asleep rambling policy wonk. He came off as the later during the debate. Just look at every recent presidential election. Every time the more charismatic candidate won.
The Democrats actually had control for four years and for two years they controlled both the Congress and White House.
The Democrats could have done whatever they wanted for two whole years.
Oh please. Owned by Gore and Kerry? lol.
Not much wrong with George unless it was that he got too used to running a ranch and didn't take sh*t from anybody! Probably not the most diplomatic person in the world!