Romney trounced in debate
- Thread starter #juan
- Start date
Bullsh*t, I watched most of it, Obama edged him, he was relaxed, Romney was tense and on the virge of being angry.
Because has been exceptionally strong in foreign policy, even with the mess he took over.
could it be because he had advance knowledge of the questions????
Almost as good as a teleprompter Non?
And a moderator should not take sides, to be impartial, which she obviously was not.......
The good news for Romney is he's no longer a cult member.
Billy Graham site removes Mormon 'cult' reference after Romney meeting – CNN Belief Blog - CNN.com Blogs
Billy Graham site removes Mormon 'cult' reference after Romney meeting – CNN Belief Blog - CNN.com Blogs
She helped Romney not make a complete idiot out of himself, which is where he was going. She gave him an out and even made a point for him.
Just as likely as Romney had advance knowledge of the questions on the first debate!
Yep, Mitt won this one as well, albeit by a narrow margin.
Hahaha, all those stupid CBC types think Obama won by 30%. Hahaha, on the last debate CBC had Obama winning the debate by 40% !!!
Hahaha, those stupid CBC watching types couldnt pick a winner if their life depended on it!! Hahaha, what a joke and a waste of taxpayer money!!
Hahaha, all those stupid CBC types think Obama won by 30%. Hahaha, on the last debate CBC had Obama winning the debate by 40% !!!
Hahaha, those stupid CBC watching types couldnt pick a winner if their life depended on it!! Hahaha, what a joke and a waste of taxpayer money!!
I just don't see where he's strong on foreign policy. A strong foreign policy to me doesn't include giving taxpayer money to people that hate us (1.5 billion given to the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt), snubbing Netanyahu, apologizing for America, and apologizing to the Muslim world for free speech (the apology for the anti-Islam film).
Last edited:
Maybe you didn't read this post in another thread:lol:
Romney Destroys Obama For Benghazi-Gate: 'Then He Flew To Las Vegas For a Fundraiser'
Romney Destroys Obama For Benghazi-Gate: 'Then He Flew To Las Vegas For a Fundraiser' - 2012 Presidential Debates - Fox Nation
Candy melts when she looks at her guy….
CNN and The Obama Administration – Weapons of Misdirection
In the history books of wool-over-sheeple-eye-removal this might, just might, go down as one of the most obvious and over-the-top Machiavellian media manuevers ever.
Watching it unfold on live TV it did not seem right. It was awkwardly and comfortably scripted, and too smooth in execution. But watching it on replay the agenda filled manipulation was obvious. It appears Candy Crowley and CNN together with the Obama Administration scripted the Libyan injection into the Presidential Debate.
I’m not just talking about Candy Crowley interjecting on behalf of President Obama, and interrupting Mitt Romney, I mean the whole segment was a set up. So we did a little research:
Candy Crowley told Erin Burnett on CNN’s show Out Front, Monday Night 10/15, that she had collected the questions from the invited and vetted debate audience at Hofstra University and was reviewing them. This was Monday on the 7pm broadcast of Erin Burnett.
When the question on Libya was asked by audience member Kerry Ladka, he prefaced the question by saying:….this question actually comes from my, err, um, a brain trust of my friends at Global Telecom Supply in Mineola yesterday, we were sitting around talking about Libya…If Candy Crowley already had the audience questions assembled the day before, how could Kerry Ladka and his brain trust friends have been writing one?
Secondly, look at the origin and subject switch from Candy Crowley. When she said “we are changing topics to a question from Kerry… from Kerry Ladka“, Obama already knew what to look for and where he was seated. There are numerous “TELLS“ Watch the video – it is at 1:06:35 Watch.
Watch the Full Town Hall Debate between Barack Obama and Mitt Romney - YouTube
President Obama moved (physically walked) directly to Kerry Ladka, and said “Hi Kerry“,… (but oddly Kerry had not moved, nor identified himself) …. then, rut roh,…. after an internal psyche trigger kicked in, President Obama ((‘oops’)) looks around as if to say where am I going… then asks “what’s your name“?
Continue reading →
more
CNN and The Obama Administration – Weapons of Misdirection | The Last Refuge
Just sad and obvious. :lol:
You can tell who won by how each side spins it. After the first debate, liberals barely even tried spinning it. They obviously lost. After the VP debate, conservatives complained that Biden was rude or that the moderator was biased. They obviously lost. If one side claims victory and the other side complains about fairness or says it was a tie or almost a tie (i.e. they're hedging and making excuses for what they know is a loss but cannot admit) then the former probably won.
In this debate both sides are equally claiming victory. The only indicator is that conservatives are complaining about the moderator and refuse to recognize that Obama did well. Liberals seem more optimistic than conservatives who are generally impetuous.
That's the thing about debates. Whereas, in the election you generally get biased information and one-sided press conferences that feed into people's biases, during the debate we are all forced to take in the same information. Most people let their biases delude them, and in normal circumstances simply avoid being exposed to reality, but I believe that reality is deniable and when confronted with it you cannot help an honest or deliberately dishonest reaction. In other words, you may not say it, but you feel it and lie to yourself about what you say. In order to believe that Paul Ryan won the VP debate, for example, you have to lie to yourself.
For this debate, lying to yourself isn't really necessary. The performances were good enough on both sides to claim victory using bias. You heard from your candidate what you wanted to hear, unlike say in the first debate where liberals were shocked to see their candidate fall flat.
In my ****ysis, Romney performed the same as he did in the first debate but this time it was against an opponent that actually showed up. For Obama that's an improvement and from a narrative perspective a recovery is a victory. If Obama hadn't bombed the first debate, this debate would have been average on average.
In this debate both sides are equally claiming victory. The only indicator is that conservatives are complaining about the moderator and refuse to recognize that Obama did well. Liberals seem more optimistic than conservatives who are generally impetuous.
That's the thing about debates. Whereas, in the election you generally get biased information and one-sided press conferences that feed into people's biases, during the debate we are all forced to take in the same information. Most people let their biases delude them, and in normal circumstances simply avoid being exposed to reality, but I believe that reality is deniable and when confronted with it you cannot help an honest or deliberately dishonest reaction. In other words, you may not say it, but you feel it and lie to yourself about what you say. In order to believe that Paul Ryan won the VP debate, for example, you have to lie to yourself.
For this debate, lying to yourself isn't really necessary. The performances were good enough on both sides to claim victory using bias. You heard from your candidate what you wanted to hear, unlike say in the first debate where liberals were shocked to see their candidate fall flat.
In my ****ysis, Romney performed the same as he did in the first debate but this time it was against an opponent that actually showed up. For Obama that's an improvement and from a narrative perspective a recovery is a victory. If Obama hadn't bombed the first debate, this debate would have been average on average.
Pretends to be running the show? I hate to break it to you, but there are no shadowy characters pulling strings behind the scenes. At least, that's what the Masons tell me to say.
Nope, nothing nefarious. Politicians are just TV figureheads for management teams called Ministrys or Departments under the banner of a marketed political party.. They have no special magical powers or ability to make laws at will. They are bound by what we are willing to accept.Pretends to be running the show? I hate to break it to you, but there are no shadowy characters pulling strings behind the scenes. At least, that's what the Masons tell me to say.
Yes...
Any answers for Gitmo still being open, record unemployment
, housing crisis
and record foreclosures
?..
How about that debt crisis, eh? 6 trillion and counting.. Any answers to that?:smile:
...... Yeah - I thought not
Are these high priorities on the Romney platform (hard to say which one as he changes them so often)? None of these seem like Republican traditional talking points except maybe the debt. They usually talk about spending cuts and tax breaks and curtailing rights to those not straight and christian. How would government cutbacks and layoffs actually help unemployment?
I hardly think Obama is the answer but IMHO he is the lesser of 2 evils.
CNN's Candy Crowley: Romney Was Actually Right On Libya - YouTube
Crowley eating crow???
That's what happens when a debate moderator takes sides
I'd like to see someone like Lloyd Robertson moderate one of those debates.........but he's Canadian....
Crowley eating crow???
That's what happens when a debate moderator takes sides
I'd like to see someone like Lloyd Robertson moderate one of those debates.........but he's Canadian....