Romney got thumped.

ptown_trojans_1;1297219 wrote:That was a complete disaster for anyone that cares for reasonable dialogue about substance.

Truth. Just the same talking points repeated over and over. Annoying.

Ty Webb;1297218 wrote:You're kidding me right???

Did you just watch the same debate?

As another poster said, that whole debate shouldn't even count. A game of hungry hippos would have more effectively determined a winner. It was pure ****.

Please don't tell me you think Obama won that?

bases_loaded;1297221 wrote:How does intrade work? If I buy Romney at 22% in PA, and he loses 54-46 do I double my money?

No. I believe winner takes all. You buy Romney, and if he wins, you get $1 per. If he loses, you get nothing.

The debate summed up in one response

10:15 p.m. EDT: The debate is now well and truly out of control. The audience bursts into applause at the moderator's affirmation that Obama called the embassy attacks an "act of terror." Romney--unwisely--walked into the ambush by giving Obama credit forsomething he did not actually say (see my article here). This has been the only weak moment for Romney during the entire debate, and allowed Obama to enjoy a brief hit at his rival's expense. (Tellingly, Obama's high-pitched voice disappears shortly thereafter--back to no-drama Obama.) Crowley seems to have had a pang of conscience about letting Romney be abused, both by her and by the audience, and makes the point--from the moderator's chair--that Romney is correct that the administration claimed for two weeks that the attack in Benghazi had been the result of a "demonstration." Expect the left and the media (but I repeat myself) to celebrate this unfortunate and counterfactual exchange.
Romney, Obama, and Crowley were all wrong--but only Romney really suffered because of the uniquely warped setup of this debate, which Crowley has turned into an anti-Republican gauntlet. Despite her promise to ask follow-ups, she fails to point out that Obama did not answer the question that had been posed to him.

CNN Focus Group give it to obama 14-6 with 15 saying it was a tie

Ty Webb;1297218 wrote:You're kidding me right???

Did you just watch the same debate?

Sure did; obviously obama did better than the last time, but he only has hope and lies to peddle; his horrific record speaks for itself. No rational person is going to vote for him when they have 4 years of his pathetic record to examine. Mr. Romney is simply on a much higher level and is a results driven individual, not just a speaker.

QuakerOats;1297231 wrote:Sure did; obviously obama did better than the last time, but he only has hope and lies to peddle; his horrific record speaks for itself. No rational person is going to vote for him when they have 4 years of his pathetic record to examine. Mr. Romney is simply on a much higher level and is a results driven individual, not just a speaker.

You're clueless

Obama lied about how he handled Bengazzi and he lied about drilling permits, and made some absurd comment about gas prices being low because the economy was ready to collapse.

Your President everyone

Well, before reading all the other responses..

1) For about the first 60 minutes, I gave the edge to Obama. He was much better, substance-wise, at challenging Romney's positions. His own ideas and proposals are still noticeably lacking. Otherwise more or less fairly even, but I thought Romney was a bit abrasive, too aggressive. And both with Obama and the moderator. It was a little off-putting, like he came to debate Biden and didn't recognize and dial it back.

2) The last 30 minutes was not good for Obama. He got some really tough questions he clearly didn't want and didn't have great answers to. Romney was also not so aggressive at this point. Along those same lines, Obama was strong early with the "liar liar" bs, and he also toned it down as time went on and instead attacked with more substance.

More or less a push. Obama will probably benefit some because his first performance was so awful. But I don't think this will have too much impact.

By the way, I thought the moderator did a fantastic job. They made it tough on her, and I thought she did great.

ptown_trojans_1;1297029 wrote:Energy Independence in 5 years is a fantasy.
How the hell is he going to be tough with China?
Those are the things I want to dive into.

I wish Romney would have pointed out you can't get tough with China when you run $1T+ deficits because that's where all the money comes from.

An incredible lie by obama on Libya ------ that will make a terrible situation even worse.

WOW, what a disgrace..

One thing I've learned. When Pubs call it a draw, they got their ass handed to them.

QuakerOats;1297249 wrote:An incredible lie by obama on Libya ------ that will make a terrible situation even worse.

WOW, what a disgrace..

Romney totally fumbled Libya...

Ty Webb;1297252 wrote:Romney totally fumbled Libya...

What? obama now says tonight that the next day he said it was a terrorist attack. Horseshi!! If that were true, why did he trot out his ambassador 5 days later to say it was a youtube clip.

obama cannot coverup one lie with another lie, or can he. He is inept, and now he can't be trusted!

I don't personally think Obama is an extremist, or that he is trying to purposefully ruin the country, or has some evil agenda. I just think he's not equipped for the job. That's it. He has clearly checked out and is in it now just to keep his helicopter and house. It's time to pack up the trucks and move out. He's had his turn and he didn't get the job done. I'm stone cold E.T. and that's the bottom line.

QuakerOats;1297257 wrote:What? obama now says tonight that the next day he said it was a terrorist attack. Horseshi!! If that were true, why did he trot out his ambassador 5 days later to say it was a youtube clip.

obama cannot coverup one lie with another lie, or can he. He is inept, and now he can't be trusted!

he did say it the day after....read the trascript

ZWICK 4 PREZ;1297250 wrote:One thing I've learned. When Pubs call it a draw, they got their ass handed to them.

If you're referring to me, I'm not a Repub.

And the only way, rationally, Obama won that was if you turned it off after an hour and/or you believe him every time he responds simply with "liar liar".

If you look at it objectively, Obama loses all these before he starts because he has no record to run on. It's basically a debate on Romney's ideas because Obama has none. And we can sit-back and circle-jerk to who scores more points on Romney's policies, but at the end of the day it comes back to the fact that Obama is campaigning on the same bs that has failed for 4 years.

On-line polls are showing a HUGE win for President Obama

Ty Webb;1297264 wrote:he did say it the day after....read the trascript

Thank you, then he knowingly sent out his ambassador to LIE to the American people and try to coverup his incredible ineptness in defending our embassy, even though he (according to you) knew it was a terror attack.

Effin$ incredible. He should resign today because of that.

QuakerOats;1297270 wrote:Thank you, then he knowingly sent out his ambassador to LIE to the American people and try to coverup his incredible ineptness in defending our embassy, even though he (according to you) knew it was a terror attack.

Effin$ incredible. He should resign today because of that.

Then Bush should've had to resign over his WMD claims

Luntz focus group (of undecideds) says they now will overwhelmingly vote for Romney.

Ty Webb;1297271 wrote:Then Bush should've had to resign over his WMD claims

Blame Bush ......... yeah, we've heard that now for 4 years.

What a miserable format and a miserable waste of time for people who might be looking for substance.

As for Libya, Obama used the phrase "acts of terror" the day after, but in a very generic sense. This is what he actually said:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/09/12/transcript-president-obama-remarks-following-deadly-attacks-at-us-consulate-in/

No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for

So we have one generic phrase vs. dozens of statements from Obama himself, his UN ambassador, his State Dept, his press secretary, et al, all connecting the violence to a protest/riot gone bad, for two whole weeks. And the fact that Crowley stepped in and saved him was a complete joke.

Fortunately, I don't think stupid, err, undecided voters will be swayed much by this trainwreck.

Ty Webb;1297269 wrote:On-line polls are showing a HUGE win for President Obama

LOL, not among anyone that matters. That's all just the liberals who were stunned with silence after the first abysmal performance. Doesn't matter what Obama says with that crowd, as long as he says it loudly and with confidence. Obama didn't sway anyone that was actually listening to what he's saying.