US Presidential Election Debate #1

  • Thread starter Thread starter Robert_Bay
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Did anyone see jay leno’s theory re: Romney’s upperhand in the debate? I don’t know how to link or I would… Sure its on youtube…
HILARIOUS!🍿:rotfl:
 
The scale of Obama’s humiliation revealed: Romney scores 52-point debate victory - the BIGGEST in Gallup poll history

Read more: dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2214753/Mitt-Romneys-52-point-debate-victory-Obama-biggest-Gallup-poll-history.html#ixzz28kdtamlZ
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
I chuckled when I heard an Obama-pundit say that Romney came off as rude and overly aggressive. They are grasping at any way to turn Obama’s utter failure into a positive.
 
Ugh! sorry guys i can’t find it… nothing that recent on youtube
I saw it on Fox
 
Did anyone see jay leno’s theory re: Romney’s upperhand in the debate? I don’t know how to link or I would… Sure its on youtube…
HILARIOUS!🍿:rotfl:
Couldn’t find it. What’s the title or another key word to search? Unlike Lockstep Letterman, Jay Leno seems to actually poke fun at both sides of the aisle.

Lisa
 
I chuckled when I heard an Obama-pundit say that Romney came off as rude and overly aggressive. They are grasping at any way to turn Obama’s utter failure into a positive.
Today I heard the same thing…that Romney came off as an “aggressive jerk who wouldn’t let Obama talk…” Apparently Obama had four more minutes than Romney but who’s counting?

This from a Democrat strategist. Female with hyphenated name. You know the type 😃

Even the host of the show shook his head and disagreed with her assessment.
Lisa
 
I agree about Obama’s speaking ability. He has never been good speaking without a prepared speech and a teleprompter. It’s just that the MSM has given him a pass all this time. The ‘uh uh uh’ he does constantly drives me nuts. His odd pronunciation of various words…of course we all remember CORPSE-man. In addition, Pawk-EE-ston is another one that is baffling. If he’s trying to demonstrate his international flair and sophistication, it’s not working.

BTW I don’t think Romney made ridiculous promises, nor did he say wave a magic wand. He has a clear business approach to the economy. It’s not brain surgery. The uncertainty, the large and meddlesome legislation, the attack on below ground energy, the threats of tax increases, all serve to paralyze the economy.

We need a problem solver, and Obama is an idealogue. That’s why it is so difficult for him to defend his record because much of what he’s done makes no sense at all…unless you are of the same ideology. He’s been living in the echo chamber of Valerie Jarrett, David Axelrod, and Michelle. He simply can’t believe people have different ideas…and when faced with Romney’s counterpoint he was without a comeback.

It reminds me of the story of some NYC liberal who was astonished that Nixon won…“Nobody I know voted for him!”

Lisa
Maybe we do need a pragmatic businessman as POTUS; I’m not sure. I recall some said the same thing about the current Mayor of NYC, Michael Bloomberg, and look how well that turned out. Obama is indeed ideological, but I happen to agree with his ideology in many respects. As for Nixon, I haven’t yet fully recovered from his election and defeat of Humphrey. That was the first Presidential election in which I voted and there have been few election nights in my memory as exciting as that one. By today’s standards, however, Nixon may be considered almost a liberal, especially on economic issues.
 
Maybe we do need a pragmatic businessman as POTUS; I’m not sure. I recall some said the same thing about the current Mayor of NYC, Michael Bloomberg, and look how well that turned out. Obama is indeed ideological, but I happen to agree with his ideology in many respects. As for Nixon, I haven’t yet fully recovered from his election and defeat of Humphrey. That was the first Presidential election in which I voted and there have been few election nights in my memory as exciting as that one. By today’s standards, however, Nixon may be considered almost a liberal, especially on economic issues.
Bloomberg may be a rich businessman like Romney but he is a SERIOUS idealogue. Honestly he makes Obama look like a free market capitalist. Between his concern about women’s breastfeeding, 32 oz sodas, and smoking he raises the term Nanny State to an artform. There is NOTHING similar about Romney and Bloomberg except the number of zeros in their bank balances. I would compare Guliani to Romney in their problem solving and practical application focus.

I think Obama is a believer in a big government interfering in your every move and the redistribution of OPM. You agree with that ideology? :eek:

As to Nixon, you’re right. The Republican party would hardly recognize him. He was quite liberal in many respects and was a believer in big government solutions. I do think his reputation is being rehabilitated over time. Comparing Watergate today’s scandals is good for a laugh.

Lisa
 
Couldn’t find it. What’s the title or another key word to search? Unlike Lockstep Letterman, Jay Leno seems to actually poke fun at both sides of the aisle.

Lisa
I don’t see it anywhere…
He “shows” what Romney removed from his pocket as he got to his podium… from an above viewpoint he shows Romney with a voodoo doll that he rubs the face of whenever Obama is speaking.
I hope it gets to youtube, or played on fox more. I got a tummy ache from laughing
 
Women have the most to lose by voting for more liberalism. Liberalism is synonymous with freedom, as evidenced by the statistics which show growing numbers of single mothers who have been abandoned by weak, unromantic, “free” men who won’t stay to love their women and kids. So the taxpayer needs to be forced to help where growing numbers of selfish men are more interested in pleasing themSelves. It’s puzzling to see the number of people who only open their minds with how best to deal with the aftermath rather than the root causes. It makes perfect sense to me why the liberals in the govt and media won’t tell on themselves. They want as many Dependent voters as possible. More Control that way.
 
Women have the most to lose by voting for more liberalism. Liberalism is synonymous with freedom, as evidenced by the statistics which show growing numbers of single mothers who have been abandoned by weak, unromantic, “free” men who won’t stay to love their women and kids. So the taxpayer needs to be forced to help where growing numbers of selfish men are more interested in pleasing themSelves. It’s puzzling to see the number of people who only open their minds with how best to deal with the aftermath rather than the root causes. It makes perfect sense to me why the liberals in the govt and media won’t tell on themselves. They want as many Dependent voters as possible. More Control that way.
The problem is that liberals want to subsidize the poor. Whenever you subsidize something, you get more of it.

That’s why as much charity as possible needs to be in the private sector.
 
The problem is that liberals want to subsidize the poor. Whenever you subsidize something, you get more of it.

That’s why as much charity as possible needs to be in the private sector.
I agree. The “pro-Charity” messages and it’s larger movement by the liberal media has been quite successful at generating activists to only want to Help. It’s become a “Help Movement.” I admit to being part of it. The definition and misinterpretation of this Help is what is so dangerous. They want to bombard our society and kids with more themes of liberal sex, drugs, violence, and shallow amusements, which will only create more dependents on govt. This is the opposite of the freedom that is found in responsible individualism. Why not create a more innocent, conservative (gasp) society for the weak to thrive and grow? Nah. They don’t want that. That makes too much sense. They would rather spread the liberalism which they believe to be healthy, but then look at all that’s broken and in need of aid because of it.

Want proof? Compare the rural poor (more conservative) to the urban poor (more liberal) regarding rates of teenage pregnancy, gang violence, teen death rate, education, etc. Both groups are poor, so what’s the difference here? It’s liberalism vs conservatism.
 
Liberals in the sense you are using the term (although classically it does mean more freedom) today has nothing to do with freedom. It’s sole purpose is to amass power in a few with rules given to the masses. They build bureaucracy with policy, limiting freedom with every law passed. Charging taxes to fund their machine, while redristributing a minimum of what they take in to keep the masses quiet.
 
Don’t fool yourselves into thinking they care… they are only after money and power… ultimately the further into the philosophy of the left you go the less they even like humanity… we’re a virus killing the earth… the right’s philosophy in America is little better… it has a superiority complex, wanting to amass power to force others to live how they see is right… even based in Judeo christian values, it still tramples one’s ability to follow one’s own conscience.
Government has no moral consciousness and therefore cannot act morally… people must do that, and no one has a right to enforce their views on others.
Christianity has suffered when it has tried, thus why we are truly about Exposing the truth and Encouraging others to follow Christ
 
Dennis Prager has some interesting analysis on the root cause for the Romney win:

Understanding why Mitt Romney so decisively won the first presidential debate is as important as the fact that he did. Why? Because once we know the reasons, almost everything about President Barack Obama and this election becomes clear.

First, Obama lost because he, like virtually the entire left, lives in a left-wing bubble.

Left-wing academics live in this bubble. There is no greater uniformity of thought than at our universities; their much-ballyhooed commitment to diversity is about race and ethnicity, not about ideas.

So, too, the great majority of news media people live in the same bubble, the left-wing herd that covers national and international news. Reading The New York Times, The Washington Post, the Los Angeles Times or Le Monde or listening to the BBC is essentially reading or listening to the same selection and presentation of the news.

One reason leftists talk to, read and listen to only fellow leftists is that they are certain that there is no other way to think rationally, compassionately or morally. Therefore, there is no reason to debate conservatives, let alone expose oneself to their ideas.

(snip)
I have met a few stout-hearted leftists who are willing to engage in the marketplace of ideas, but, with those few exceptions, I think Prager hit the nail on the head.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top