31 replies to this topic

[Raptor Witness]

The first debate was way too early for Obama to begin his move, so his poor debate performance may actually have been tactical. It was also focused on domestic issues, and would clearly be the least likely for the President to win.

Obama has a far better chance of beating Romney in the next two debates, because #2 will be a Town Meeting of undecideds in Hempstead, NY. That's Obamaland, and he'll have a better chance to appeal directly to the middle and lower classes. It's far better if the 47% issue is brought up by the people directly, and an impossible populist hole for Romney to climb out of.

The third debate is on foreign policy. No matter what Romney says about Obama, he did nail Osama. It's a feather in his cap that no one can take away from him. The more dangerous Romney paints the world, the more it favors a sitting President. It should be Obama's best debate.

The only feathers Romney has are the yellow ones he pulled out of Big Bird in the first. He'll be lucky if he's not tarred and feathered with them.

Edited by Raptor Witness, 10 October 2012 - 08:30 AM.

[and then]

If we allow the humiliation of Benghazi to be swept under a rug and if we as a nation re elect this foolish, evil man, then we deserve everything that follows.

[Render]

I wouldn't be so sure, Romney is a strong opposing candidate with a lot of business knowledge. He shouldn't be underestimated.

[CommunitarianKevin]

Render, on 10 October 2012 - 08:58 AM, said:

I wouldn't be so sure, Romney is a strong opposing candidate with a lot of business knowledge. He shouldn't be underestimated.

Exactly, he is a master of deception an can make a convincing and sound argument to people who do not know bettter and are slaves in his system. His methods may work...

[Legaia]

HuttonEtAl, on 10 October 2012 - 09:27 AM, said:

Exactly, he is a master of deception an can make a convincing and sound argument to people who do not know bettter and are slaves in his system. His methods may work...

To be honest, your posts are quite comical. You still see politics in blue and red spectrums. How cute.

It's so contradictory, and downright asinine, to point out anything deceitful about Romney in an effort to defend this president.

[Bama13]

HuttonEtAl, on 10 October 2012 - 09:27 AM, said:

Exactly, he is a master of deception an can make a convincing and sound argument to people who do not know bettter and are slaves in his system. His methods may work...

Very entertaining. You are always good for a laugh. Keep up the good work.

[WoIverine]

Raptor Witness, on 10 October 2012 - 08:21 AM, said:

The first debate was way too early for Obama to begin his move, so his poor debate performance may actually have been tactical. It was also focused on domestic issues, and would clearly be the least likely for the President to win.

Obama has a far better chance of beating Romney in the next two debates, because #2 will be a Town Meeting of undecideds in Hempstead, NY. That's Obamaland, and he'll have a better chance to appeal directly to the middle and lower classes. It's far better if the 47% issue is brought up by the people directly, and an impossible populist hole for Romney to climb out of.

The third debate is on foreign policy. No matter what Romney says about Obama, he did nail Osama. It's a feather in his cap that no one can take away from him. The more dangerous Romney paints the world, the more it favors a sitting President. It should be Obama's best debate.

The only feathers Romney has are the yellow ones he pulled out of Big Bird in the first. He'll be lucky if he's not tarred and feathered with them.

Left-Right Paradigm much?

Edited by WoIverine, 10 October 2012 - 01:19 PM.

[Dredimus]

You do know that "Sesame Street" and "Big Bird" have actually sent out request to both parties and have asked to be left out of the partisan politics. Beyond that, if Big Bird is the only tactic that Obama could muster after suffering humiliation at the last debate... then Romney has this locked in.

[Corp]

I think Obama will do better (can't do much worst) but could still go either way. Think he'll do well on the foreign policy debate since that's a weak area for Romney and I think the general American public is getting tried of an aggressive foreign policy.

[Hawkin]

Obama didn't light the world on fire the last 4 years but I'm not so sure about my other choice either.
The news I hear about Romney's ordeals with Bain Capital on Leverage Buy Outs LBO's doesn't impress me.
I might end up flipping a coin on this one.

[supervike]

To think the so called poor performance by the President was in any way tactical gives far too much credit to the brain trust.

Don't get me wrong, I like Obama, will probably vote for him, but even the calculating political machines cannot plan things that well.

That's movie script stuff, not real life.

I don't think Obama lost the debate.  Romney finally just showed some spunk, and that overshadowed the actual conversations.

It doesn't make his words any more or less true.

[CommunitarianKevin]

Bama13, on 10 October 2012 - 01:16 PM, said:

Very entertaining. You are always good for a laugh. Keep up the good work.

If you want to comment on something, how about replying to my post here...
http://www.unexplain...60#entry4487168

[Bavarian Raven]

Quote

no matter what Romney says about Obama, he did nail Osama

erm...no he didn't. i'm pretty certain it was the navy seals who did that. all mr. o had to do was ok it. minor difference.

[ninjadude]

and then, on 10 October 2012 - 08:37 AM, said:

If we allow the humiliation of Benghazi to be swept under a rug

1) were you humiliated on 9/11 as well?

2) no one is sweeping it under a rug. why would you think that?

[F3SS]

Just because Osama was killed during obamas term doesn't mean squat to his foreign policy. His policy is weak and apologetic.
Sesame Street officials said they don't need a dime from tax payers and would thrive just fine without it.
9/11 wasn't swept under the rug and pinpointed on some dumb youtuber. Bengazi was and yes that is humiliating. The administration stuck to the YouTube story for days knowing full well that it was a straight up planned terrorist attack. It happened on frigging 9/11. It doesn't take a genius to realize a video that was made in July and only had a few hundred views wasn't the reason for these outrageous attacks by our Islamic enemies.
And about this debate performance being tactical. That is just very wishful thinking. Fact is, he sucked hard. I remember watching mike Tyson in his last days of boxing. Whenever he was getting whooped and not eating ears I knew a bunch of fanboys that wouldn't accept what they were seeing. They kept saying that he's just letting the other guy get it all out and then he's gonna 'Go Tyson' on him. That never really happened. The glory days were long past. That is what you are witnessing here. Hope and change fading into the past.
I'm fully confident at this point that Obama is going to lose. A lot of people who haven't been paying attention paid attention during that debate and the last tactic any sitting president should enact is showing his country men how to look like a chump. He's the leader of the the most powerful country to ever exist and bye commander in chief of our military. Next debate, he should bring an X-ray of his torso because that's the only way he's gonna be able to prove that he has a spine.

Edit: Forgot to ask...Wouldn't the better tactic be to thwomp Romney in every debate? If he's as good as you think than that would be the most sensible tactic. And to the op, you say Obama couldn't be expected to do well in the domestic category anyhow. What the hell does that say? Domestic issues are of utmost importance. Wow

Edited by Is it for real, 10 October 2012 - 09:04 PM.